BX  8955  .W66  1855 

Wood,  James 

Old  and  new  theology 


/^ 


iUN    9   195' 

OLD  AND  NEW  THEOm^^j.^^  st*^ 


OR, 


THE   DOCTRINAL   DIFFERENCES 


WHICH    HAVE 


AGITATED  AND  DIVIDED 


THE 


PRESBYTERIAN    CHURCH. 


By  JAMES  WOOD,  D.  D. 


The  old  is  better. — Luke  v.  39. 


A  NEW  AND    ENLARGED    EDITION. 


PHILADELPHIA: 
PRESBYTERIAN  BOARD  OF  PUBLICATION, 

No.  265  CHESTNUT  STREET. 


Eutered  according  to  Act  of  Congress,  in  the  year  1866,  by 

A.   W.   MITCHELL,    M.  D., 

in  the  Clerk's  OfiBce  of  the  District  Court  of  the  United  States  for 
the  Eastern  District  of  Pennsylvania. 

STEKEOTYPED  BY  J.  FAGAN. 


CONTENTS. 


Preface  to  the  First  Edition  in  1838 page      5 

Introduction  to  the  Third  Edition 15 

CHAPTER  I. 
The  character  and  government  of  God 23 

CHAPTER  II. 

God's  covenant  with  Adam  and  our  relation  to  him  as  our  fed- 
eral head — involving  the  doctrine  of  imputation  and  origi- 
nal sin 37 

CHAPTER  III. 

The  subject  of  the  preceding  chapter  continued — exhibiting 
the  New  Theology  concerning  God's  covenant  with  Adam 
as  the  federal  head  of  his  posterity,  imputation,  original 
sin,  &G 50 

CHAPTER  IV. 

Remarks  on  imputation,  original  sin,  &c.,  with  reference  to  the 
views  presented  in  the  preceding  chapter 65 

CHAPTER  V. 

The  sufferings  of  Christ  and  our  justification  through  him ....     81 

(3) 


4  CONTENTS. 

I 

CHAPTER  VI.  ^ 

Justification — a  continuation  of  the  preceding  chapter 116 

CHAPTER  VII. 

Human  ability,  regeneration,  and  the  influences  of  the  Holy- 
Spirit 137 

CHAPTER  VIII. 

Human  ability,  regeneration,  &c.,  continued  from  the  preced- 
ing chapter 157 

CHAPTER  IX. 

A  contrast  between  the  Old  and  New  Theology,  by  way  of  re- 
view, and  a  notice  of  the  Perfectionism  of  Mr.  Finney....   175 

CHAPTER  X. 

The  measures  adopted  by  the  General  Assembly  for  removing 
these  errors  from  the  Presbyterian  Church 197 

CHAPTER  XI. 
The  acts  of  the  General  Assembly  in  1837  and  1838 217 

CHAPTER  XII. 

Present  character  and  condition  of  the  Old  and  New-school 
bodies 249 

Appendix 263 


PREFACE 

TO  THE  FIRST  EDITION  IN  1838. 


In  numerous  instances,  during  the  past  year,  the  question 
has  been  proposed  to  us,  *'  What  is  the  difference  between  the 
doctrinal  views  of  the  Old  and  New-school?'^  Though  several 
books  and  pamphlets  have  been  written  on  a  number  of  these 
points,  and  though  most  if  not  all  of  them  have  been  discussed 
at  various  times  in  our  periodicals,  there  are  many  in  our 
churches  who  are  not  sufficiently  informed  on  the  subject,  par- 
ticularly in  those  sections  where  the  new  doctrines  have  not 
become  prevalent,  and  where  but  few  publications  on  the  points 
at  issue  have  been  circulated.  Recent  occurrences  render  it 
peculiarly  important  that  all  in  our  connection  should  fully 
understand  the  merits  of  the  question.  It  has  now  become  a 
practical  one.  A  decision  is  now  being  made  whether  we  will 
continue  with  the  church  of  our  former  choice,  or  unite  with 
those  who,  without  changing  their  name,  have  organized  a  new 
body.  With  a  view  of  giving  information  to  such  as  desire  to 
ascertain  on  which  side  the  truth  lies,  we  shall  present,  in  as 
concise  a  manner  as  the  case  will  admit,  the  distinfruishins: 
features  of  the  New  Theology — comparing  them,  as  we  proceed, 
with  those  doctrines  which  have,  by  way  of  contra^,  been 
denominated  Old.  For  the  sentiments  of  the  Old-school  we 
1*  (5) 


6  PREFACE. 

shall  refer  to  the  Confession  of  Faith  of  the  Presbyterian 
Church  and  to  standard  Calvinistic  writers.  We  think  this 
cannot  be  reasonably  objected  to,  even  by  our  New-school 
brethren,  since  they  have  never  charged  the  former  with  de- 
parting from  the  Confession  of  Faith.  For  the  New-school 
doctrines,  we  shall  make  quotations  from  the  professors  at  New 
Haven,  Mr.  Finney,  and  various  ministers  in  the  Presbyterian 
Church.  We  quote  from  those  first  named,  because  Dr.  Taylor 
and  his  associates,  though  belonging  to  another  denomination, 
are  regarded  as  the  modern  authors  of  these  speculations;  and 
Mr.  Finney,  until  within  a  few  years  past,  belonged  to  our  body, 
and  preached  and  published  most  of  his  sentiments  on  these 
subjects  before  he  left  the  church. 

Some  of  the  new  doctrines  began  to  be  broached  at  New 
Haven  in  1821—22,  which  created  much  dissatisfaction  in  the 
minds  of  a  number  who  were  made  acquainted  with  the  fact. 
In  1826  Professor  Fitch  published  his  Discourses  on  the  Nature 
of  SiU',  and  this  was  followed  by  a  series  of  communications  in 
the  Christian  Spectator,  on  the  Means  of  Regeneration.  The 
former  were  reviewed  by  Dr.  Green  in  the  Christian  Advocate^ 
and  the  latter  called  forth  a  controversy  between  Dr.  Taylor  and 
Dr.  Tyler.  In  1828  Dr.  Taylor  delivered  his  Concio  ad  67e- 
Tum,  which  was  the  cause  of  Dr.  Woods  writing  his  Letters 
addressed  to  Dr.  Taylor;  and  the  whole  series  taken  together 
drew  from  Dr.  Griffin  his  Treatise  on  Divine  Efficiency/,  and 
led  to  the  establishment  of  the  East  Windsor  Theological 
Seminary. 

Mr.  Finney,  who  was  hopefully  converted  and  licensed  to 
preach  a  few  years  previous,  became  celebrated  as  an  evangelist 
in  Western  New  York,  in  1825-26.     Thou2;h  distinguished  at 

>  (DO 

first  rather  by  ''  new  measures"  than  by  new  doctrines,  he  soon 
adopted  the  views  of  Dr.  Taylor;  and  he  has  probably  done 
more  to  give  them  currency  in  certain  sections  of  the  church 


PREFACE.  7 

than  any  other  individual.  On  some  points  he  has  gone  further 
than  his  archetype;  and  on  all  perhaps  has  expressed  himself 
with  more  frankness  and  less  caution — asserting  in  positive 
terms  what  the  former  taught  only  by  ajfirming  that  the  con- 
trary could  not  he  proved.  His  lectures  and  sermons  were  the 
subject  of  animadversion  in  several  periodicals;  and  as  we  happen 
to  know,  a  certain  minister  seriously  urged  one  of  his  (Mr. 
Finney's)  co-presbyters  to  commence  process  against  him;  but 
nothing  of  this  kind,  we  believe,  was  ever  attempted. 

In  1829  Mr.  Barnes  preached  and  published  his  Sermon  on 
the  Way  of  Salvation;  which  disclosed  the  fact  that  on  a 
number  of  points  he  agreed  substantially  with  the  new  system; 
and  upon  his  being  called,  some  months  afterwards,  to  a  pas- 
toral charge  in  Philadelphia,  some  of  the  members  of  the 
Philadelphia  Presbytery  objected  to  receiving  and  installing 
him,  on  the  ground  that  his  sermon,  which  had  been  exten- 
sively circulated  in  that  city,  contained  important  errors  in  doc- 
trine. The  action  of  the  Presbytery,  Synod,  and  Gleneral 
Assembly,  in  1830-31,  the  publication  of  his  Notes  on  the 
Romans  in  1835,  and  the  charges  and  trials  for  heresy  during 
that  and  the  following  year,  are  too  familiar  to  all  connected 
with  our  church,  to  need  any  particular  notice.  The  preceding 
statements  have  been  made  merely  to  show  the  coincidence 
between  the  rise  and  progress  of  the  new  divinity  in  New 
England  and  its  commencement  and  extension  in  the  Presby- 
terian Church. 

It  has  been  said  that  the  controversy  in  the  Presbyterian 
Church  does  not  respect  doctrines  at  all,  except  as  a  secondary 
thing.  Some  have  told  us  it  is  a  strife  for  power — others  a 
contest  for  the  purse — and  others  a  thrust  at  Congregationalism, 
and  through  that  at  New  England.  With  whatever  view  these 
allegations  have  been  made,  the  effect  of  them  has  been  to  pro- 
duce  distrust  and  disunion  in  many  cases  where  there  would 


8  PREFACE. 

otherwise  have  been  a  hearty  concurrence  in  most  if  not  all  of 
the  measures  adopted  for  the  reform  of  the  church.  This  has 
been  particularly  the  case  with  some  whose  partialities  are  strong 
in  favour  of  New  England.  It  w^ould  seem  that  such  had  for- 
gotten for  the  time,  that  in  New  England  the  same  controversy 
is  going  on  which  has  agitated  and  ruptured  the  Presbyterian 
Church.  If  it  is  a  war  against  New  England,  how  does  it 
happen  that  many  of  their  ablest  theologians  have  taken  sides 
with  the  assailants  ;  nay,  that  they  were  first  in  raising  the  note 
of  alarm  ?  The  language  of  Dr.  Green,  in  1831,  undoubtedly 
expresses  the  feelings  of  a  large  majority,  if  not  of  all  the 
ministers  in  the  Presbyterian  Church.  *' '  What  V  we  have 
heard  it  said,  even  by  some  who  love  us,  ^  What!  are  you  array- 
ing yourselves  against  the  whole  Theology  of  New  England?' 
No  —  we  have  answered  privately,  and  now  answer  publicly. 
No — we  are  arraying  ourselves  against  Taylorism,  and  Fitchism, 
and  Murdockism,  and  Emmonsism,  and  self-conversionism. 
But  we  thank  God,  this  is  not  '  the  whole  theology  of  New 
England,'  and  we  hope  and  believe  it  never  will  be.  We  know 
that  there  is  a  host  of  men,  sound  in  the  faith,  who  dislike  and 
oppose  most  decidedly,  this  whole  mass  of  error;  and  we  hail 
these  men,  and  love  them  as  fellow  labourers  in  the  cause  of 
truth,  and  bid  them  God  speed  with  all  our  hearts." 

Though  in  the  progress  of  the  difficulties  some  prominence 
has  been  given  of  late  to  Congregationalism,  it  was  only  from 
the  circumstance  that  this  was  believed  to  have  an  important 
connection  with  the  main  question  at  issue.  It  is  not  the  Con- 
gregationalism of  New  England  that  was  the  subject  of  dis- 
cussion, but  Congregationalism  in  the  Presbyterian  Church. 
Against  Congregationalism,  as  such,  there  exists  no  hostility; 
but  when,  through  the  Plan  of  Union,  it  became  the  means, 
like  the  Trojan  horse,  of  introducing  into  our  body  many  who 
were  unfriendly  to  our  doctrines  and   government,  it  became 


PREFACE.  9 

necessary,  in  self-defence,  to  free  the  churcli  from  this  improper, 
and  to  us,  ruinous  condition.* 

The  same  remarks  are  applicable  to  the  resolutions  of  the 
General  Assembly  concerning  certain  benevolent  societies.  To- 
wards the  American  Home  Missionary  Society  and  the  American 
Education  Society,  in  their  incipient  stages,  and  considered 
merely  as  organizations  for  doing  goodj  there  was  for  a  number 
of  years  the  greatest  cordiality.  This  is  evident  from  the  fact 
that  they  were  repeatedly  recommended  by  the  General  As- 
sembly. But  when  it  was  found  that  their  operations  within 
our  bounds,  besides  interfering  with  the  free  action  of  our  own 
Boards,  were  made  the  instruments  in  the  hands  of  those  who 
managed  the  various  Presbyterian  auxiliaries,  of  increasing  and 
extending  our  difficulties,  and  rendering  them  more  unmanage- 
able— the  one  by  furnishing  young  men  for  our  pulpits  whose 
sentiments  did  not  accord  with  our  standards,  and  the  other  by 
directing  and  sustaining  them  in  their  fields  of  labour — the 
Assembly  of  1837  withdrew  their  former  recommendations  and 
requested  them  to  cease  operating  in  our  churches.  As  in 
their  action  concerning  the  Plan  of  Union  and  the  four  Synods, 
so  in  regard  to  these  societies,  the  ground  of  their  proceedings 
was,  that  they  believed  them  to  be  (to  use  their  own  language) 
*' exceedingly  injurious  to  the  peace  and  purity  of  the  Presby- 
terian church" — and  while  they  "hoped  and  believed  that  the 

*  According  to  our  published  statement,  as  corrected  for  the  second 
edition  of  a  pamphlet  entitled  "Facts  and  Observations  &c.,"  there  are 
in  the  four  disowned  Synods  three  hundred  and  thirty-four  churches 
nominally  Presbyterian,  and  two  hundred  and  eighty-six  Congrega- 
tional. A  short  time  ago,  a  minister  who  was  then  a  member  of  the 
Otsego  Presbytery,  observed  to  us, "  If  you  have  reported  as  favourably 
concei'ning  all  the  Presbyteries  as  you  have  concerning  ours,  they  have 
no  reason  to  complain.  Instead  of  there  being  eight  Presbyterian  and 
eight  Congregational  churches  as  reported  by  you,  there  are,  he  said, 
but  six  Presbyterian  churches  and  ten  Congregational." 


10  PREFACE. 

Assembly  would  not  be  behind  the  protesters,  [the  patrons  of 
those  societies]  in  zeal  for  the  spread  of  divine  truth,  they  desire 
that  in  carrying  on  those  great  enterprises,  the  church  may  not 
be  misled  to  adopt  a  system  of  action  which  may  be  perverted 
to  the  spread  of  error." 

It  is  not  true,  therefore,  that  the  controversy  has  little  or  no 
respect  to  doctrines.  On  the  contrary,  the  principal  and  pri- 
mary ground  of  it,  has  been  a  discrepancy  in  doctrinal  senti- 
ments. Its  origin  may  be  traced  to  the  opinion  so  prevalent 
of  late,  among  certain  classes  of  men,  that  we  ought  to  expect 
as  great  improvements  in  theology  as  have  been  made  in  the 
arts  and  sciences — that  those  formularies  of  Christian  faith, 
which  have  been  received  for  centuries  as  containing  a  correct 
statement  of  Scripture  doctrine,  are  too  antiquated  for  this 
enlightened  age;  and  if  received  now,  are  to  be  explained 
agreeably  to  certain  philosophical  principles  which  were  unknown 
in  the  days  of  our  ancestors — and  that  the  Bible  itself  is  to  be 
so  expounded  as  to  accord  with  those  theories  of  mind,  of  free 
agency,  and  of  moral  government,  which  have  been  introduced 
by  the  new  philosophy.  It  is  this  which  gives  to  their  theology 
the  denomination  of  new.  Considered  chronologically,  it  is  far 
from  being  new.  Similar  sentiments  were  advanced  on  most 
of  the  points  in  dispute,  as  long  ago  as  the  time  of  Pelagius, 
and  they  have  sprung  up  and  flourished  for  a  while  at  clifi"erent 
periods  since.  Were  this  the  proper  place,  we  could  easily  sub- 
stantiate this  remark  by  a  reference  to  documents. 

The  principles  upon  which  these  modern  improvements  in 
theology  profess  to  be  based,  appear  to  us  to  be  radically  erro- 
neous. If  the  doctrines  of  religion  were  as  difficult  to  be  dis- 
covered by  a  diligent  reader  of  the  sacred  Scriptures,  as  the 
laws  and  motions  of  the  heavenly  bodies  are  to  an  observer  of 
the  planets,  the  march  of  mind  might  be  expected  to  be  as 
visible  in  the  development  of  new  theological  truths,  as  in  the 


PREFACE.  11 

new  discoveries  of  astronomy.  But  the  Bible,  we  have  always 
supposed,  has  recorded  truth  in  order  to  reveal  li]  and  not  to 
place  it  so  far  beyond  the  reach  of  common  observation,  as  to 
require  the  aid  of  a  telescope  to  enable  us  to  discern  its  character 
and  proportion.  Truth  is  immutable.  The  Bible  is,  therefore, 
not  to  be  interpreted  by  a  set  of  philosophical  dogmas,  which 
vary,  it  may  be,  with  every  successive  age;  but  by  a  careful 
examination  and  comparison  of  its  several  words  and  phrases. 
These  obvious  way-marks  were  the  same  in  the  time  of  Au- 
gustine and  Calvin,  and  the  Westminster  divines,  as  they  are 
now;  and  it  is  by  a  faithful  adherence  to  these,  that  so  much 
uniformity  has  been  preserved  among  Christians  of  every  age, 
in  regard  to  the  doctrines  of  our  holy  religion.  Abstruse  meta- 
physical speculations  have  now  and  then  held  out  their  false 
lights,  and  led  portions  of  the  church  into  error ;  but  whenever 
the  pride  of  intellect  and  learning  has  been  humbled  by  the 
Spirit  of  God,  and  there  has  been  a  return  to  that  simple-hearted 
piety,  which  is  willing  to  receive  the  plain  teachings  of  the 
Bible,  without  stopping  to  inquire  whether  they  are  consistent 
with  certain  new  modes  of  philosophizing,  it  has  uniformly 
resulted  in  the  revival  of  those  old  and  venerable  doctrines, 
which  have  been  the  stability  and  glory  of  the  church  in  every 
period  of  her  history. 

We  do  not  intend  to  convey  the  idea  that  all  who  are  now 
denominated  New-school,  or  who  have  united  in  organizing  the 
new  Assembly,  embrace  the  new  doctrines.  Various  reasons 
have  operated  to  produce  in  the  minds  of  some,  so  much 
sympathy  for  those  who  maintain  these  sentiments,  that  they 
have  taken  sides  with  them,  and  hence  have  received  their 
name,  though  they  disclaim  all  affinity  for  their  peculiar  views. 
Others  receive  the  new  divinity  in  a  modified  form;  and  a 
third  class  adopt  some  of  its  dogmas,  while  they  reject  others. 


12  PREFACE. 

These  last  remarks  apply  to  sOme  of  tbose  from  whose  produc- 
tions we  design  to  make  extracts  in  the  following  pages. 

How  large  a  proportion  of  the  new  Assembly  embrace  the 
New  Theology,  we  will  not  undertake  to  say.  We  might  state 
a  number  of  facts,  which  appear  to  show  that  it  is  adopted,  at 
least,  '■^ for  substance  of  doctrine,''  by  a  very  considerable  ma- 
jority. On  the  contrary,  there  are  some  who  have  expressed 
opposition  to  these  doctrines,  but  who  have  been  influenced,  it 
is  probable,  by  their  local  situation,  or  their  connections  and 
sympathies,  to  join  the  new  body.  Our  earnest  wish  is,  that 
they  may  exert  a  happj''  influence.  We  have  no  malignant 
feelings  to  gratify — but  shall  rejoice  to  know  that  every  error 
has  been  corrected,  every  ground  of  complaint  removed — that  as 
a  body,  they  may  regain  that  Christian  confidence,  to  which  a 
portion  of  their  number  are  now  so  justly  entitled.  It  is  to  be 
deeply  regretted,  that  in  one  or  two  things  they  would  not  pur- 
sue a  difierent  course.  Twelve  months  ago,  a  committee  ap- 
pointed by  that  party,  consented  to  take  another  name,  and  to 
leave  their  brethren  of  the  Old-school  in  the  quiet  possession 
of  their  records,  board  of  trustees,  and  certain  invested  funds. 
An  amicable  division  would  doubtless  have  taken  place  at  that 
time,  had  it  not  been  for  the  fact  that  the  committee  from  the 
New-school  party,  though  they  consented  to  the  above  reason- 
able terms,  insisted  upon  such  other  conditions  as  could  not  be 
acceded  to  without  jeoparding  some  of  those  very  interests  for 
the  securing  of  which  a  division  had  become  necessary.  Hence 
the  negotiation  failed.  But  now  they  claim  to  be  the  true 
General  Assembly  of  the  Presbyterian  Church,  and  have  ap- 
pealed to  the  civil  courts  to  wrest,  if  possible,  from  the  hands 
of  their  brethren,  what,  they  virtually  acknowledged  a  year 
ago,  does  not  belong  in  equity  to  themselves,  but  to  those  whom 
they  have  thus  assailed.  Such  a  procedure  seems  to  us  grossly 
improper,  as  well  as  inconsistent.     It  is  to  be  hoped,  however, 


PREFACE.  13 

that  on  further  reflection,  they  will  be  induced  to  retrace  their 
steps  and  pursue  a  course  more  agreeable  to  their  former  pro- 
fessions and  to  the  spirit  of  the  gospel. 

But  while  we  do  not  doubt  that  these  suits,  if  prosecuted, 
will  be  decided  in  favour  of  the  defendants,  provided  law  and 
justice  do  not  conflict  with  each  other,  we  wish  to  remind  the 
reader  that  the  question,  which  body  is  the  true  General  As- 
semhlt/^  does  not  depend  upon  any  decision  which  is  to  be  made 
by  the  civil  courts.  They  can  decide  who  shall  have  the  funds; 
but  beyond  this  their  jurisdiction  does  not  extend.  The  Gen- 
eral x\ssembly  was  organized  ten  years  before  they  had  a  board 
of  trustees;  and  their  organization  was  as  complete  during  that 
time  as  it  was  afterwards.  It  had  then  its  constitution — and 
this  constitution,  be  it  remembered,  makes  the  General  As- 
sembly, and  not  a  civil  court,  the  body  of  final  resort  in  all 
cases  of  ecclesiastical  jurisdiction.  This  board  of  trustees  was 
incorporated  for  the  purpose  of  managing  certain  funds  in 
behalf  of  the  Assembly,  and  for  nothing  else.  If  their  charter 
had  been  a  limited  one,  its  expiration  would  not  have  affected 
the  character  of  the  General  Assembly;  and  if  it  shall  be  taken 
away,  the  only  result  which  can  follow,  will  be  to  deprive  them 
of  their  funds ;  but  as  an  ecclesiastical  body,  they  remain  unim- 
paired. If  they  were  the  true  General  Assembly  in  1789,  and 
for  the  ten  following  years  before  their  charter  was  obtained, 
they  are  the  true  General  Assembly  now,  whatever  becomes  of 
their  property. 

Though  we  shall  be  gratified  to  have  them  succeed  in  this 
respect,  we  regard  the  result  of  these  suits  as  of  little  import- 
ance compared  with  other  matters  which  have  been  involved  in 
the  controversy,  but  which  we  trust  are  now  finally  settled.  In 
regard  to  the  question  of  property,  we  feel  very  much  like  a 
native  Christian  of  the  South  Sea  Islands  who  had  lost  his 
house  by  fire,  and  who  in  the  act  of  rushing  into  the  flames  to 

2 


14  PREFACE. 

secure  a  copy  of  the  New  Testament,  was  severely  scorched  by 
the  conflagration.  As  tlie  missionaries  were  condoling  with 
him  on  the  loss  of  his  house,  he  put  his  hand  under  his  gar- 
ment, and  taking  out  the  sacred  treasure  which  he  had  saved, 
exclaimed  with  ecstasy,  "  True,  I  have  lost  my  property,  but  I 
have  saved  my  gospels!"  We  may  lose  our  property  before 
the  civil  tribunals;  but  if  we  have  saved  our  "gospels,''  we 
shall  be  infinite  gainers,  and  ought  therefore  to  "  take  joyfully 
the  spoiling  of  our  goods."  These  remarks  are  made  in  view 
of  the  prominence  given  in  the  New-school  prints  to  a  judicial 
decision :  but  we  are  far  from  believing  that  aiiy  professional 
ingenuity  or  legal  skill  will  be  able  to  procure  such  a  result  as 
they  anticipate;  even  should  they  venture  to  bring  the  question 
to  trial. 


INTRODUCTION 

TO    THE    THIRD    EDITION. 


The  following  treatise  is  designed  to  demonstrate  that 
the  issue  between  the  two  parties  in  the  late  controversy 
in  the  Presbyterian  Church  was  strictly  a  doctrinal  one. 
Hence  the  work  consists  mainly  of  a  comparison  of  doc- 
trinal views,  as  contained  in  the  productions  of  Old  and 
New-school  writers.  Near  the  close  of  the  volume  we 
remark,  "It  has  been  our  aim,  both  in  our  statements 
and  quotations,  to  exhibit  the  doctrines  of  the  New  The- 
ology, just  as  they  are,  without  the  least  exaggeration. 
For  this  purpose  our  extracts  from  New-school  authors 
have  been  numerous,  and  sufficiently  extended  as  to 
length,  to  give  a  correct  view  of  their  sentiments.  But 
if  it  can  be  made  to  appear  that  we  have  misrepresented 
their  views  in  a  single  important  point,  we  shall  cheer- 
fully rectify  the  mistake."  The  first  edition  was  pub- 
lished in  1838 ;  and  the  second  in  1845.  It  has  been 
circulated  widely ;  but  up  to  the  present  time,  (1853),  no 
refutation  has  been  attempted  and  no  corrections  pro- 
posed. Is  not  this  silence  a  virtual  admission  of  the 
fidelity  of  our  quotations,  and  the  essential  verity  of  our 
statements  ?  It  has  been  denied,  indeed,  that  the  New- 
school  Presbyterians  as  a  hody^  maintain  the  errors  im- 
puted to  them  by  their  Old-school  brethren ;  and  yet  the 
existence  of  those  errors  among  them,  they  themselves 
acknowledge. 

(15) 


16  INTRODUCTION. 

In  a  volume  recently  prepared  by  a  committee  of  the 
Synod  of  New  York  and  New  Jersey,  and  published 
under  the  sanction  of  the  Synod,  entitled  "A  History 
of  the  Division  of  the  Presbyterian  Church  in  the  United 
States  of  America,"  is  found  the  following:  "Before 
a  refutation  is  attempted  of  the  charges  of  gross  errors 
and  irregularities  against  constitutional  Presbyterians, 
justice  to  them  requires  that  it  be  stated  and  borne  in 
mind,  that  an  overwhelming  majority  of  them  have  never 
denied  that  there  were  errors  in  doctrine  and  irregulari- 
ties in  practice  in  the  churches,  which  required  correction. 
They  believed  there  were,  deplored  their  existence,  and 
were  willing  to  co-operate  in  the  employment  of  consti- 
tutional and  scriptural  means  for  their  removal.  They 
then  resisted  and  have  uniformly  borne  their  testimony 
against  them.  The  evils  complained  of  w^ere  mainly 
attributable  to  a  class  of  reckless  evangelists,  and  pastors 
who  admitted  them  to  their  pulpits,  some  of  whom  doubt- 
less approved  and  adopted  their  doctrines  and  measures." 
The  exact  number  of  those  who  embraced  these  errors, 
we  have  never  professed  to  state.  We  did  not  know ; 
and  could  therefore  only  say,  that  so  far  as  we  could 
infer  from  circumstances,  we  believed  the  number  to  be 
considerable.  In  1838,  we  thought  it  probable  they 
formed  a  majority  of  the  new  Assembly ;  but  if  we  were 
mistaken,  if  "an  overwhelming  majority,"  were  opposed 
to  those  errors,  and  "deplored  their  existence,"  it  affords 
us  the  highest  satisfaction  to  acknowledge  our  mistake. 
But  whether  they  were  few  or  many,  their  number  was 
suiRcient  to  disturb  the  peace  of  the  whole  church  ;  and 
so  influential  as  to  render  the  ordinary  method  of  church 
discipline  ineffective  and  impracticable. 

After  the  above  admission  of  the  existence  of  "  errors 
and  irregularities  which  required  correction,"  and  the 
declaration  that  they  (the  New-school)  "  deplored  their 
existence,"  that  they  "then  resisted  and  have  uniformly 
borne  their  testimony  against  them,"  &c.,  we  were  pre- 
pared to  expect  that  due  credit  would  be  given  to  their 


INTRODUCTION.  17 

Old-scliool  brethren  for  their  laudable  zeal  in  endeavour- 
ing to  remove  ^'the  evils  complained  of;"  however 
strongly  they  might  object  to  the  measures  adopted  for 
this  purpose.  But  so  far  from  this,  the  author  of  this 
volume,  (strange  to  relate)  does  not  give  the  Old-school 
Assembly  credit  even  for  sincerity  in  assigning  doctrinal 
errors  as  the  main  ground  of  their  proceedings  in  the 
case.  The  existence  of  errors  exerted,  according  to  his 
statement,  a  very  subordinate  influence  in  producing  the 
alarm  which  was  felt  by  their  Old-school  brethren,  and 
in  leading  to  those  measures  which  resulted  in  a  division 
of  the  church.  The  real  cause  of  anxiety,  it  is  alleged, 
was  their  waning  influence  in  the  church,  by  the  rapid 
increase  of  the  New-school  party ;  and  their  urgency  for 
final  action  arose  from  a  determination  to  gain  a  perma- 
nent ascendency  by  excluding  a  portion  of  those  who 
stood  in  their  way.  The  proof  of  this,  as  adduced  in 
this  volume,  consists  mainly  of  a  historical  statement 
concerning  the  controversy  with  regard  to  benevolent 
operations — the  Old-school  believing  it  to  be  the  duty 
of  the  Presbyterian  Church  in  her  organized  capacity,  to 
carry  on  the  work  of  missions,  &c. ;  and  the  New  main- 
taining that  this  work  could  be  prosecuted  more  efliciently 
by  voluntary  societies,  in  the  support  of  which  all  evan- 
gelical churches  should  unite. 

It  is  not  our  purpose  to  give  the  history  of  this  con- 
troversy. Before  its  termination,  it  had  assumed  a  serious 
aspect,  considered  merely  as  a  question  of  benevolent 
action.  It  had  come  to  this — not  whether  ecclesiastical 
Boards  are  preferable,  but  whether  they  should  be  tole- 
rated. Our  New-school  brethren  made  repeated  efforts 
from  1828  to  1831,  to  secure  a  vote  of  the  Assembly, 
and  the  consent  of  the  church  at  large,  to  merge  the 
Board  of  Domestic  Missions  in  the  American  Home  Mis- 
sionary Society ;  and  in  1836,  they  refu^td  (being  a  ma- 
jority of  the  Assembly  that  year)  to  ratify  the  contract 
entered  into  the  year  previous,  with  the  Synod  of  Pitts- 
burgh, bv  which  the  Western  Foreign  Misi^ionarv  Societv, 


18  INTRODUCTION. 

■wliich  had  been  conducted  sby  the  latter  body,  was  to 
become  the  Assembly's  Board  of  Foreign  Missions.  This 
refusal  is  denominated  in  the  volume  before  us,  a  "  signal 
defeat"  of  the  "ultraists;"  meaning  the  Old-school 
minority  in  the  Assembly.  If  then,  as  is  alleged,  there 
was  on  the  part  of  the  latter,  "a  contest  for  power,''  it 
was  for  the  power  of  choice  in  regard  to  the  channel 
through  which  their  benevolence  should  flow ;  the  power 
to  exercise  their  Christian  liberty  as  to  the  mode  in  which 
they  should  endeavour  to  promote  evangelical  religion  in 
our  country ;  the  power  to  act  according  to  the  dictates 
of  their  own  consciences  in  having  our  branch  of  the 
church  enrolled  as  a  distinct  and  organized  body  among 
the  hosts  of  the  Lord,  while  engaged  in  fulfilling  the  Sa- 
viour's last  command,  "  Go  ye  into  all  the  world,  and 
preach  the  gospel  to  every  creature." 

But  though  this  was  a  matter  which  was  justly  deemed 
to  be  of  great  importance,  it  might  have  been  adjusted, 
if  nothing  else  had  been  involved  in  it.  With  regard  to 
Domestic  Missions,  a  compromise  was  effected  in  1831, 
and  acquiesced  in  by  both  parties.  But  it  was  perceived 
that  the  difficulty  lay  deeper  than  this — that  the  founda- 
tion of  their  disagreement  with  regard  to  Ecclesiastical 
Boards,  was  a  discrepancy  in  doctrinal  views ;  and  that 
the  evil,  instead  of  being  remedied  by  concession  or  delay, 
would  be  likely  to  increase,  through  the  influence  of  new 
Presbyteries,  which  would  be  formed  under  the  Plan  of 
Union,  and  the  operation  in  our  bounds  of  those  socie- 
ties, which  had  now  become,  in  the  hands  of  our  New- 
school  brethren,  a  powerful  instrument  to  control  the 
policy  and  modify  ["Americanize"]  the  character  of  the 
church.  If,  again,  there  was,  on  the  part  of  the  Old- 
school,  a  "  contest  for  poiver^''  it  was  for  the  power  of 
preserving  the  jjurity  of  the  gospel,  as  expressed  in  our 
Confession  of  Faith ;  and  of  maintaining  a  wholesome 
and  necessary  discipline  of  those  who  had  introduced 
into  our  heritage  strange  and  unscriptural  doctrines.  If, 
as  this  volume  asserts,  our  New-school  brethren  "  were 


INTRODUCTION.  19 

willing  to  co-operate  in  the  employment  of  constitutional 
and  scriptural  means  for  their  removal,"  how  did  it  hap- 
pen that  in  every  case  of  judicial  process  which  came 
before  the  Assembly,  on  charges  of  doctrinal  errors, 
they  took  sides  with  the  accused  ?  under  the  convenient 
plea  that  latitude  in  doctrinal  belief  was  authorized  by 
the  Adopting  Act  of  1729,  and  that  the  errors  charged 
were  not  ''^fundamental ;''  as  though  any  doctrine,  the 
belief  of  which  does  not  absolutely  peril  our  personal 
salvation,  may  be  held  and  preached  in  our  church  with- 
out censure.  This  may  be  regarded  as  liberal;  but  in 
our  judgment,  it  is  more  so  than  is  consistent  with  the 
precepts  of  the  gospel,  or  compatible  with  the  purity, 
peace  and  prosperity  of  the  church. 

But  we  have  no  intention  of  reviewing  the  work 
alluded  to.  The  numerous  documents  contained  in  it 
are  doubtless  a  faithful  transcript  from  the  records,  and 
give,  of  course,  as  far  as  they  go,  a  true  history  of  the 
case.  If  these  had  been  published  without  notes  or 
comments,  no  objections  could  be  reasonably  made  to 
the  book,  either  by  Old-school  or  New.  But  the  ac- 
companying remarks  are  very  different  from  the  version 
which  is  given  of  those  transactions  by  Old-school  men. 
In  the  three  concluding  chapters  of  the  following  treatise, 
(10th,  11th  and  12th — not  published  in  previous  editions,) 
we  shall  give  our  views  concerning  these  matters,  without 
any  particular  reference,  however,  to  the  "  History" 
above  noticed. 

Though  our  observations  and  reasonings  do  not  accord 
with  those  of  New-school  writers,  we  see  no  occasion  for 
imitating  some  of  them  in  the  use  of  severe  and  oppro- 
brious epithets.  Our  doctrinal  differences  form  no  apology 
for  personal  abuse.  The  term  New-school,  which  we 
employ,  is  not  designed  as  a  reproach,  but  as  a  con- 
venient and  appropriate  designation  of  a  party,  as  dis- 
tinguished from  another,  who  are  commonly  denomi- 
nated Old-school.  The  writer  of  the  volume  which  we 
have  had  occasion  to  mention,  does  not  object  to  these 


20  INTRODUCTION. 

terms,  but  endeavours  to  show  that,  by  a  strange  misno- 
mer, they  are  applied  exactly  opposite  to  what  they  ought 
to  be.  The  manner  in  which  they  came  to  be  employed 
is  well  known.  The  first  issue  in  the  late  controversy 
was  made  in  the  case  of  the  Rev.  Albert  Barnes,  in  1830 ; 
and  his  published  errors  were  made,  five  years  afterwards, 
(1835)  a  ground  of  prosecution.  Immediately  parties 
were  arrayed — one  resolved  to  make  him  amenable  for 
these  errors ;  the  other  equally  resolved  to  defeat  the 
attempt  and  hold  him  guiltless.  During  the  protracted 
controversy  which  followed,  the  conflicting  points  of  two 
materially  variant  systems  of  theology  were  brought 
prominently  to  view.  The  question  was,  Shall  the  doc- 
trinal symbols  of  the  Presbyterian  Church  be  maintained 
in  their  integrity,  or  shall  every  one  be  allowed  to  inter- 
pret them  according  to  his  own  caprice  ?  The  party 
maintaining  these  standards,  agreeably  to  their  obvious 
and  long  settled  meaning,  were  soon  and  justly  charac- 
terized as  the  Old-school ;  while  that  which  contended 
for  latitude  of  interpretation,  and  the  allowance  of  novel 
schemes  of  doctrine,  were  styled  with  equal  propriety 
New-school.  In  drawing  the  lines  of  demarcation,  it  was 
never  supposed  or  pretended  that  all  the  ministers,  and 
especially  all  the  people  who  placed  themselves  under  the 
New-school  array,  really  held  the  alleged  errors  of  some 
of  their  party ;  but  submitting  to  leaders  who  did  hold 
them,  or  who  gave  them  their  countenance,  by  shielding 
such  as  had  deserted  the  old  landmarks,  they  necessarily 
acquired  the  same  name.  How  far  these  reasons  exist 
for  appropriating  to  them  this  appellation  at  the  present 
time,  will  appear  from  Chapter  xii.  of  this  treatise. 

We  see  no  cause  for  altering  the  work  as  far  as  it  was 
published  in  former  editions,  notwithstanding  the  allega- 
tion that  we  "  quoted  mostly  from  Congregational  authors, 
with  whom,  on  these  points,  the  New-school  Presbyte- 
rians have  but  little  sympathy."  This  is  a  mistake. 
Our  quotations  were  mostly  from  authors  who  at  the  time 
of  the  publication  of  the  books  quoted  from,  were  min- 


INTRODUCTION.  21 

isters  in  good  standing  in  the  Presbyterian  Cliurcli ;  and 
with  two  or  three  exceptions  they  are  now  in  the  New- 
school  body.  Mr.  Finney,  though  now  a  Congregation- 
alist,  was  for  some  time  a  minister  in  the  Presbyterian 
Church,  during  which  period  he  preached  with  approba- 
tion in  numerous  Presbyterian  pulpits  in  Western  New 
York,  the  substance  of  those  discourses  which  afterwards 
appeared  in  print ;  and  their  publication,  for  the  most 
part,  was  prior  to  his  leaving  the  Presbyterian  Church. 
Since  then  he  has  published  his  "  System  of  Theology," 
in  which  there  is  scarcely  one  trace  of  Calvinism ;  and 
the  extreme  views  which  he  now  maintains,  he  alleges, 
are  the  legitimate  results  of  those  doctrines.  The  proof 
which  we  adduced  from  Congregationalist  authors,  though 
indirect,  was  legitimate.  New  Haven  was  the  foster 
parent  of  these  errors ;  and  the  Quarterly  issued  there, 
from  which  our  quotations  were  chiefly  made,  was  not 
only  read  extensively  by  Presbyterian  ministers,  but  was 
the  medium  through  which  one  of  them  (the  Rev.  Albert 
Barnes)  published  some  of  his  most  objectionable  matter. 
It  was  not  from  a  conviction  of  its  irrelevancy  that  An- 
dover  was  not  also  referred  to.  As  many  of  the  minis- 
ters who  sided  with  the  New-school  were  alumni  of  the 
Theological  Seminary  at  Andover,  the  sentiments  of  one 
of  the  Professors  of  that  Institution  might  have  been 
quoted  with  propriety,  as  tending  to  show  the  essentially 
anti-Presbyterian  doctrines  taught  in  that  school.  The 
late  Professor  Stuart,  who,  with  that  party,  was  a  kind 
of  oracle,  repudiated,  in  some  of  its  most  important  par- 
ticulars, that  form  of  sound  words  which  has  ever  been 
the  glory  of  the  Presbyterian  Church.  His  pupils  un- 
doubtedly adopted  many  of  his  peculiar  sentiments. 
One  of  the  present  incumbents,  Professor  Park,  has  di- 
verged still  more  widely  from  the  doctrines  of  our  church ; 
and  yet  what  New-school  journal  has  condemned  his 
errors,  or  cautioned  their  candidates  for  the  ministry  to 
avoid  his  teachings  ? 

In  an  anonymous  pamphlet,  the  design  of  which  is  to 


22  INTRODUCTION. 

show  that  there  is  no  essential  difference  between  the 
doctrines  of  the  two  schools,  this  treatise  is  barely  alluded 
to  in  two  or  three  brief  remarks,  one  of  which  is,  that 
we  misunderstand  the  New-school  Presbyterians  whom 
we  quote.  But  as  no  intimation  is  given  that  the  quota- 
tions are  incorrect,  it  is  not  very  material  how  we  under- 
stand them.*  Every  reader  can  interpret  them  for  himself. 
Our  office  was  rather  that  of  a  compiler  than  an  expositor. 
We  submitted  the  question  of  agreement  or  disagreement 
to  an  intelligent  and  candid  public,  to  be  decided  by  an 
extended  comparison  of  various  authors.  The  decision 
has  been  made  Disinterested  observers,  whatever  may 
be  their  creed,  have  been  generally  forced  to  admit  that 
there  are  material  variations  in  faith  between  the  two 
bodies.  No  softening  words,  no  extenuating  pleas,  no 
ingenious  explanations  can  make  the  two  systems  one  and 
the  same. 

But  though  we  dare  not  attempt  by  the  aid  of  nice, 
philosophical  distinctions,  to  make  those  differences  appear 
insignificant,  we  are  equally  indisposed  to  magnify  their 
importance  beyond  what  truth  and  candor  require.  It 
is  to  us  a  source  of  pain,  and  not  of  pleasure,  to  record 
the  errors  of  Christian  brethren ;  and  we  shall  be  sin- 
cerely gratified  and  thankful  to  God,  when  those  which 
are  noticed  in  this  treatise  shall  be  known  only  in  history. 

*  It  is  proper  to  observe  that  the  italics  and  capitals  in  the 
passages  quoted  are  mostly  our  own. 


OLD  AND  NEW  THEOLOGY. 


CHAPTER  I. 

THE   CHARACTER   AND    GOVERNMENT   OF   GOD. 

In  New  England,  the  controversy  on  the  subject  of 
the  present  chapter  embraces  some  propositions  which 
have  never  been  much  discussed  in  the  Presbyterian 
church,  and  concerning  which  the  great  majority  of  our 
ministers,  we  believe,  have  not  expressed  a  decided  opinion. 
We  refer  to  the  following,  which  we  give  in  the  language 
of  Dr.  Tyler :  "  Dr.  Taylor  maintains  contrary  to  my 
belief,  that  the  existence  of  sin  is  not,  on  the  whole,  for 
the  best ;  and  that  a  greater  amount  of  good  would  have 
been  secured  had  all  God's  creatures  remained  holy,  than 
will  result  from  the  present  system."  Again :  "  Dr. 
Taylor  maintains,  contrary  to  my  belief,  that  God,  all 
things  considered,  prefers  holiness  to  sin,  in  all  instances 
in  which  the  latter  takes  place."  It  has  been  a  common 
sentiment  among  New  England  divines,  since  the  time  of 
Edwards,  "  that  sin  is  the  necessary  means  of  the  greatest 
good,  and  as  such,  so  far  as  it  exists,  is  preferable,  on 
the  whole,  to  holiness  in  its  stead."  The  sentiment  is 
founded  upon  what  has  been  denominated  the  Beltistian 

(23) 


24  OLD    AND    NEW    THEOLOGY. 

Theory ;  which,  it  is  said,  was  first  taught  by  Leibnitz, 
about  the  commencement  of  the  last  century.  This 
theory  maintains,  that  "  of  all  possible  systems,  God, 
infinitely  wise  and  good,  must  adopt  that  which  is  best.'' 
The  present  system,  therefore,  is  preferable  to  every 
other ;  and  since  sin  is  a  part  of  the  system,  "  its  exist- 
ence is,  on  the  whole,  for  the  best."  Not  that  "  sin 
must  be  good  in  itself,"  as  Dr.  Taylor  disingenuously 
insinuates  that  they  hold — this  is  no  part  of  their  belief 
— ^but  that  God  will  so  overrule  it,  for  the  promotion  of 
his  glory  and  the  happiness  of  the  universe,  "  that  a 
greater  amount  of  good  will  result  from  the  present 
system,  than  would  have  been  secured  had  all  God's 
creatures  remained  holy."*  Concerning  the  principle 
of  Leibnitz,  from  which  these  conclusions  are  drawn,  Dr. 
Witherspoon  remarks :  "  This  scheme  seems  to  me  to 
labour  under  two  great  and  obvious  difficulties — that  the 
infinite  God  should  set  limits,  to  himself,  by  the  produc- 
tion of  a  "created  system — it  brings  creation  a  great  deal 
too  near  the  Creator  to  say  it  is  the  alternative  of  Omni- 
potence. The  other  difficulty  is,  that  it  seems  to  make 
something  which  I  do  not  know  how  to  express  otherwise 
than  by  the  ancient  stoical  fate,  antecedent  and  superior 
even  to  God  himself.  I  would  therefore  think  it  best  to 
say,  with  the  current  of  orthodox  divines,  that  God  was 
perfectly  free  in  his  purpose  and  providence,  and  that 
there  is  no  reason  to  be  sought  for  the  one  or  the  other 
beyond  himself." 

*  New  England  optimism,  as  it  is  sometimes  denominated,  arises 
from  the  theory  that  virtue  consists  in  benevolence — or  that  the 
tendency  of  holiness  to  produce  happiness,  is  that  which  gives  it 
its  chief,  if  not  its  onlv  excellence. 


OLD    AND    NEW    THEOLOGY.  25 

Admitting,  then,  that  there  was  no  necessity  on  the 
part  of  the  Creator  to  form  one  particular  system  rather 
than  another,  it  becomes  merely  a  question  of  fact, 
whether  more  good  will  result  to  the  universe  from  the 
existence  of  sin,  all  things  considered,  than  would  have 
been  secured  if  sin  had  never  been  permitted.  To  this 
question,  most  of  the  ministers  in  our  church,  we  are  dis- 
posed to  think,  would  reply  by  saying,  "  We  cannot  tell." 
All  agree  that  "  the  existence  of  sin  under  the  divine  gov- 
ernment is  a  profound  mystery ;"  and  also  that  God  will 
make  use  of  it  to  display  some  of  his  illustrious  perfec- 
tions, and  to  communicate  to  his  creatures  rich  and 
eternal  blessings.  But  whether  he  might  not  have  formed 
a  system,  if  it  had  been  his  pleasure,  by  which  his  glory 
would  have  been  still  more  displayed,  and  a  still  greater 
amount  of  happiness  secured  to  his  creatures,  it  is  not 
our  province  to  decide.  As  he  has  nowhere  told  us  that 
he  has  made  the  best  system  possible,  and  as  we  cannot 
perceive  that  his  infinite  goodness  required  him  to  do  it, 
we  are  disposed  to  leave  the  question  to  be  contemplated 
and  solved  (if  a  solution  be  desirable),  when  we  shall 
have  the  advantage  of  that  expansion  of  mind,  that  in- 
crease of  knowledge,  and  that  interchange  of  sentiment 
with  other  created  beings,  which  we  shall  enjoy  in  the 
heavenly  world. 

But  while  in  regard  to  these  propositions  we  express 
no  opinion,  we  consider  the  reasoning  of  Dr.  Taylor  in 
attempting  to  refute  them  as  involving  pernicious  errors. 
It  is  on  this  account  that  we  have  introduced  the  subject 
in  the  present  volume.  Pressed  with  the  difficulty  that 
if  sin  under  the  divine  government  will  not  on  the  whole 
be  for  the  best,  why  did  God  permit  it  ?  he  has  taken  the 
3 


26  *OLD    AND    NEW    THEOLOGY. 

bold,  not  to  say  the  impious  ground,  that  God  did  all  he 
could  to  prevent  the  existence  of  sin,  but  could  not,  with- 
out infringing  on  the  moral  agency  of  man — and  that  he 
would  make  the  world  holier  and  happier  now  if  he  could, 
without  abridging  human  liberty. 

His  language  on  this  subject  is  as  follows :  "It  will 
not  be  denied  that  free  moral  agents  can  do  wrong  under 
every  possible  influence  to  prevent  it.  The  possibility 
of  a  contradiction  in  supposing  them  to  be  prevented 
from  doing  wrong,  is  therefore  demonstrably  certain. 
Free  moral  agents  can  do  wrong  under  all  possible  pre- 
venting influence."  —  Christian  Spectator^  Sept.  1830, 
p.  563.* 

"But  in  our  view  it  is  a  question  whether  it  is  not 
essential  to  the  honour  of  God  to  suppose  that  he  has 
done  all  he  could  to  secure  the  universal  holiness  of  his 
accountable  creatures ;  and  that  nevertheless,  some,  in 
defiance  of  it,  would  rebel.  Such  a  proposition  we  think 
neither  violates  the  feelings  of' enlightened  piety,  nor  the 
decision  of  revelation."  —  Christian  Spectator,  1832, 
p.  567. 

"  God  not  only  prefers  on  the  whole  that  his  creatures 
should  for  ever  perform  their  duties  rather  than  neglect 
them,  but  purposes  on  his  part  to  do  all  in  his  power  to 
promote  this  object  in  his  kingdom." — Christian  Specta- 
tor, 1832,  p.  660. 

"  It  is  a  groundless  assumption,  that  God  could  have 
prevented  all  sin,  or  at  least,  the  present  degree  of  sin 
in  a  moral  system.     If  holiness  in  a  moral  system  be 

*  As  we  have  not  all  the  numbers  of  the  Christian  Spectator 
in  our  possession,  we  shall,  in  our  quotations  from  that  work,  make 
free  use  of  a  pamphlet  written  by  the  Rev.  Daniel  Dow. 


OLD    AND    NEW    THEOLOGY.  27 

preferable  to  sin  in  its  stead,  why  did  not  a  benevolent 
God,  were  it  possible  to  him,  prevent  all  sin,  and  secure 
the  prevalence  of  universal  holiness  ?  Would  not  a  moral 
universe  of  perfect  holiness,  and  of  course  perfect  happi- 
ness, be  happier  and  better  than  one  comprising  '  sin  and 
its  miseries  ?'  And  must  not  infinite  benevolence  accom- 
plish all  the  good  he  can  ?  Would  not  a  benevolent  God, 
then,  had  it  been  possible  to  him  in  the  nature  of  thifigs, 
have  secured  the  existence  of  universal  holiness  in  his 
moral  kingdom?"     Coneio  ad  Clerum. 

It  is  not  surprising  that  the  publication  of  such  senti- 
ments created  alarm  among  the  orthodox  clergy  of  New 
England ;  and  that  speedy  efforts  were  made  to  arrest 
their  progress. 

Unhappily,  they  soon  found  their  way  to  New  York, 
and  through  the  agency  of  Mr.  Finney  and  others,  ob- 
tained considerable  currency.  Mr.  Finney's  views  will 
appear  from  the  following  quotation.  In  reply  to  an 
objection  that  as  God  "  is  almighty,  he  could  prevent  sin 
if  he  pleased,"  &c.,  he  observes  :  "  To  say  nothing  of  his 
word  and  oath  upon  this  subject,  you  have  only  to  look 
into  his  law  to  see  that  he  has  done  all  that  the  nature 
of  the  case  admitted  to  prevent  the  existence  of  sin. 
The  sanctions  of  his  law  are  absolutely  infinite:  in  them 
he  has  embodied  and  held  forth  the  highest  possible  mo- 
tives to  obedience.  His  law  is  moral  and  not  physical ; 
a  government  of  motive  and  not  of  force.  It  is  in  vain 
to  talk  of  his  omnipotence  preventing  sin.  If  infinite 
motives  cannot  prevent  it,  it  cannot  be  prevented  under 
a  moral  government,  and  to  maintain  the  contrary  is 
absurd  and  a  contradiction.  To  administer  moral  laws 
is  not  the  object  of  physical  power.     To  maintain,  there- 


28  OLD    AND    NEW    THEOLOGY. 

fore,  that  the  physical  omnipotence  of  God  can  prevent 
sin,  is  to  talk  nonsense." — Sermons  on  Important  jSub- 
jectSy  p.  58. 

Similar  language  is  employed  by  him  and  other  writers 
of  the  same  school  with  reference  to  the  power  of  God 
to  convert  sinners,  and  to  make  the  world  holier  and 
happier  than  it  now  is.  Mr.  Edward  R.  Tyler  [not  Dr. 
Tyler]  preached  a  sermon  at  New  Haven,  Oct.  1829 
(published  by  request),  in  which  occur  the  following  sen- 
tences :*  "  He  [God]  does  not  prefer  the  present  system 
to  one  which  might  have  presented  itself  to  his  choice, 
had  it  been  possible  to  retain  all  moral  beings  in  obedi- 
ence ;  but  prefers  it  to  the  non-existence  of  a  moral  sys- 
tem, notwithstanding  sin  is  its  unavoidable  attendant." 
"  The  nature  of  things,  as  they  now  exist,  forbids,  as  far 
as  God  himself  is  concerned,  the  more  frequent  existence 
of  holiness  in  the  place  of  sin.  How  do  you  know  that 
the  influence  which  He  employs,  even  in  respect  to  those 
who  perish,  is  not  all  which  the  nature  of  the  case  admits  ? 
How  do  you  know  that  he  can  maintain  his  moral  govern- 
ment, or  preserve  moral  agents  in  being  as  such,  and 
prevent  sin  ?  Do  you  not  pass  the  boundaries  of  human 
knowledge  in  saying  that  he  is  able  to  prevent  all  sin, 
while  he  preserves,  unimpaired,  the  freedom  of  account- 
able beings  ?  Such  may  be  the  nature  of  free  agents 
that  they  cannot  be  governed  in  a  manner  to  exclude  sin, 
or  to  restrict  it  to  a  smaller  compass  than  it  actually  pos- 
sesses." "Such  is  the  nature  of  free  agents,  that  God 
foresaw  he  could  not  create  them  without  liability  to  err 
and  actual  transgression.     He  knew  at  the  same  time, 

*  Mr.  Tyler  was  at  that  time  Pastor  of  the  South  Church  in 
Middletown,  Conn. 


OLD    AND    NEW    THEOLOGY.  29 

that  the  best  possible  system  included  such  beings  ;  that 
is,  beings  capable  of  knowing  and  loving  him.  He  re- 
gretted, as  he  abundantly  teaches  us  in  his  word,  that 
some  of  those  whom  he  was  about  to  create  would  sin. 
Had  it  been  possible  to  secure  them  all  in  obedience, 
more  happiness  would  have  been  enjoyed  by  his  creatures, 
and  equal  glory  would  have  surrounded  his  own  throne. 
But  although  the  system  which  he  saw  to  be  best,  could 
not  be  realized  in  consequence  of  the  anticipated  perver- 
sion of  moral  agency,  he  perceived  a  system  such  as  he 
has  adopted,  notwithstanding  the  evil  attending  it,  to  be 
preferable  to  any  which  should  exclude  moral  beings." 
"It  is  to  him  a  subject  of  regret  and  grief,  yet  men  trans- 
gress ;  they  rebel  in  spite  of  his  wishes ;  they  persevere 
in  sin  in  spite  of  all  which  he  can  do  to  reclaim  them." 

A  writer  in  the  Christian  Spectator  [believed  to  be 
Professor  Fitch,]  advances  the  same  ideas.  "Whatever 
degree  or  kind  of  influence"  says  he,  ^'is  used  with  them, 
to  favour  their  return  to  him,  at  any  given  time,  is  as 
strongly  favourable  to  their  conversion  as  it  can  be  made 
amid  the  obstacles  which  a  world  of  guilty  and  rebellious 
moral  agents  oppose  to  God's  works  of  grace." — "Re- 
view of  Dr.  risk's  Discourse  on  Predestination  and  Elec- 
tion." 

In  accordance  with  these  sentiments,  it  was  not  uncom- 
mon, a  few  years  ago,  in  some  parts  of  New  York,  to 
hear  from  the  pulpit  and  in  the  lecture  room,  that  God  is 
doing  all  he  can  to  convert  and  save  sinners — that  if  he 
could,  he  would  convert  many  more  than  he  does — that 
he  converts  as  many  as  he  can  persuade  to  yield  their 
hearts  to  him — and  other  expressions  to  the  same  effect. 
Of  very  similar  import  is  the  remark  attributed  to  a  son 
3* 


30  OLD    AND    NEW    THEOLOGY. 

of  Dr.  Beecher,  which,  according  to  the  Hartford  ChriS' 
tian  Watchmaji,  was  one  cause  of  Dr.  Porter's  anxiety 
in  relation  to  the  father — it  having  been  reported  that 
he  approved  of  the  sentiment,  viz.  "that  though  God  is 
physically  omnipotent,  he  has  not  acquired  moral  power 
enough  to  govern  the  universe  according  to  his  will." 

How  different  these  statements  are  from  the  old  the- 
ology, will  appear  by  a  reference  to  the  Confession  of 
Faith ;  which  teaches  that  God  "  hath  most  sovereign 
dominion  over  his  creatures,  to  do  by  them,  for  them, 
and  upon  them,  whatsoever  himself  pleaseth" — that  he 
is  "Almighty,  most  absolute,  working  all  things  accord- 
ing to  the  counsel  of  his  own  immutable  and  most  right- 
eous will,  for  his  own  glory."  They  are  equally  at  vari- 
ance with  the  word  of  God,  which  declares  that  "he 
doeth  according  to  his  will  in  the  army  of  heaven,  and 
among  the  inhabitants  of  the  earth ;  and  none  can  stay 
his  hand,  or  say  unto  him.  What  doest  thou?" 

The  positions  assumed  by  Dr.  Taylor  and  others, 
besides  being  unscriptural,  are  believed  by  many  to  in- 
volve principles  which  are  subversive  of  some  important 
Scripture  doctrines.  They  place  such  limits  upon  the 
power  of  God,  as  to  be  a  virtual  denial  of  his  omnipo^ 
fence.  They  make  him  so  dependent  upon  his  creatures, 
as  to  render  him  liable  to  disappointment,  and  conse- 
quently to  a  diminution  of  his  happiness.  Dr.  Taylor, 
or  one  of  his  friends,  admits  that  his  blessedness  has  been 
diminished  by  the  existence  of  sin.  "  It  is  admitted  that 
what  men  have  done  to  impair  the  blessedness  of  God  by 
sin,  has  not  failed  of  its  results  in  the  actual  diminution 
of  his  blessedness,  compared  with  what  it  had  been,  had 
they  obeyed  his  perfect  law." — Spirit  of  the  Pilgrims, 


OLD    AND    NEW    THEOLOGY.  31 

Vol.  V.  p.  693.  Mr.  Tyler,  wlio  lias  just  been  referred 
to,  makes  the  same  admission.  "  This  doctrine,"  he 
remarks,  "  is  said  to  be  inconsistent  with  the  happiness 
of  God.  And  we  admit,  that  as  far  as  his  happiness  id 
affected  by  the  conduct  of  his  creatures,  he  w^ould  have 
been  better  pleased  had  angels  and  men  always  remained 
steadfast  in  his  fear  and  service." 

They  involve  a  denial  of  the  divine  decrees — for  if 
God  does  not  possess  such  absolute  control  over  his  crea- 
tures that  he  can  govern  them  according  to  his  pleasure, 
how  could  he  have  decreed  any  thing  unconditionally 
concerning  them,  since  it  might  happen,  that  in  the  ex- 
ercise of  their  free  agency,  they  would  act  contrary  to 
the  divine  purpose  ?  On  the  same  principle,  they  virtu- 
ally reject  the  Calvinistic  doctrine  of  election,  and  make 
election  depend  upon  the  foreknowledge  of  God  and  the 
will  of  the  creature.  This  is  actually  the  way  in  which 
Mr.  Finney  explains  the  doctrine.  "  The  elect,  then," 
says  he,  "  must  be  those  who  God  foresaw  could  be  con- 
verted under  the  wisest  administration  of  his  government. 
That  administering  it  in  a  way  that  would  be  most  bene- 
ficial to  all  worlds,  exerting  such  an  amount  of  moral 
influence  on  every  individual  as  would  result,  on  the 
whole,  in  the  greatest  good  to  his  divine  kingdom,  he 
foresaw  that  certain  individuals  could,  with  this  wisest 
amount  of  moral  influence,  be  reclaimed  and  sanctified, 
and  for  this  reason,  they  were  chosen  to  eternal  life." 
*'  The  elect  were  chosen  to  eternal  life,  because  God  fore- 
saw that  in  the  perfect  exercise  of  their  freedom  they 
could  be  induced  to  repent  and  embrace  the  gospel." 
"  In  choosing  his  elect,  you  must  understand  that  he  has 
thrown  the  responsibility  of  their  being  saved  upon  them  j 


82  OLD    AND    NEW    THEOLOGY. 

tliat  tlie  whole  is  suspended  upon  their  consent  to  the 
terms ;  you  are  perfectly  able  to  give  your  consent,  and 
this  moment  to  lay  hold  on  eternal  life.  Irrespective  of 
your  cwn  choice,  no  election  can  save  you,  and  no  repro- 
bation can  damn  you." — Sermons  on  Important  Subjects, 
p.  224,  25,  29,  33.  Mr.  Tyler,  from  whose  sermon  we 
have  already  quoted,  gives  the  same  explanation  of  this 
doctrine,  or,  in  other  words,  virtually  denies  it.  "  God 
foresees,"  he  observes,  "whom  he  can  make  willing  in 
the  day  of  his  power,  and  resolves  that  they  shall  be 
saved."  Prof.  Fitch  also  advances  the  same  idea  in  his 
review  of  Dr.  Fisk's  discourses  on  Predestination  and 
Election,  in  the  "  Christian  Spectator." 

The  same  remarks  may  be  made,  substantially,  con- 
cerning the  saints'  perseverance,  and  even  their  stability 
in  heaven.  If  the  free  will  of  sinners  may  effectually 
resist  all  the  influence  which  God  can  use  for  their  con- 
version, why  may  not  the  free  will  of  Christians,  under 
the  counter  influence  of  temptation,  break  through  all  the 
moral  influences  which  God  can  bring  to  bear  upon  them, 
and  they  completely  and  eternally  fall  away  ?  And  if 
so,  why  may  not  the  same  catastrophe  befall  them  after 
they  arrive  at  heaven  ?  To  borrow  the  language  of  Dr. 
Tyler ;  "If  his  creatures  are  so  independent  of  him  that 
he  cannot  control  them  at  pleasure,  what  assurance  can 
he  give  us  that  every  saint  and  every  angel  will  not  yet 
apostatize  and  spread  desolation  through  the  moral  uni- 
verse ?" 

Horrible  as  this  thought  is,  it  appears  to  be  a  legiti- 
mate consequence  from  the  reasoning  of  the  New  Haven 
divines.  "  But  this  possibility  that  moral  agents  will  sin, 
remains  (suppose  what  else  you  will)  so  long  as  moral 


OLD    AND    NEW    THEOLOGY.  33 

agency  remains ;  and  how  can  it  be  proved  that  a  thing 
will  not  be,  when,  for  aught  that  appears,  it  may  be? 
When  in  view  of  all  the  facts  and  evidence  in  the  case  it 
remains  true  that  it  may  be,  what  evidence  or  proof  can 
exist  that  it  will  not  heV'—Ch.  Spec.  1830,  p.  563. 
Again:  "We  know  that  amoral  system  necessarily  im- 
plies the  existence  of  free  agents,  with  the  power  to  act 
in  despite  of  all  opposing  power.  This  fact  sets  human 
reason  at  defiance  in  every  attempt  to  prove  that  some  of 
these  agents  will  not  use  that  power  and  actually  sin." 
Ch.  Spec,  1831,  p.  617.  If,  then,  the  saints  and  angels 
in  heaven  are  ''free  agents^'"  they  have,  according  to  the 
above  reasoning,  "  the  power  to  act  in  despite  of  all  op- 
posing power,"  and  it  cannot  be  proved  "that  some  of 
these  agents  will  not  use  that  power  and  actually  sin." 

On  this  subject  we  will  quote  some  pertinent  remarks 
from  "Views  in  Theology,"  a  periodical  published  in 
New  York.  "It  is  as  true  of  angels  and  the  spirits  of 
just  men  made  perfect,  that  they  are  moral  agents,  and 
that  their  powers  are  the  same  in  kind  that  are  known  to 
originate  sin,  as  it  is  of  us ;  as  clear  that  if  God  '  should 
begin  and  pursue  any  method  of  providence  and  govern- 
ment' over  them,  '  the  causes  which  originate  sin  would 
still  exist  in  kind,  under  his  providence,'  as  it  is,  that 
they  would  among  men ;  and  '  since  under  any  system 
of  providence,  the  condition  of  his  creatures  must  be  con- 
stantly changing ;'  as  clear,  therefore — if  the  powers  of 
moral  agency  alone  be  considered — '  that  among  these 
fluctuations,  there  may  arise  conjunctures  under  any  pro- 
vidence, in  which  temptations  will  rise  and  prevail  to  the 
overthrow  of  some  of  those  creatures,'  as  it  is  that  they 
may,  under  any  providence,  over  such  beings  as  ourselves. 


34  OLD    AND    NEW    THEOLOGY. 

"  On  tte  principles,  then,  on  whicli  his  reasoning  pro- 
ceeds, we  not  only  have  no  certainty  of  the  continued 
obedience  of  holy,  angelic,  and  redeemed  spirits,  but 
have  an  absolute  probability  of  their  universally  yielding 
to  rebellion  at  some  period  of  their  existence,  notwith- 
standing every  species  and  degree  of  preventing  influence 
that  God  can  exert  over  them  !" 

To  these,  we  will  add  the  following  from  Dr.  Griffin : 
"  If  God  could  not  have  prevented  sin  in  all  worlds  and 
ages,  he  cannot  prevent  sin  in  any  world  or  age,  or  in  any 
creature  at  any  time,  except  by  preventing  the  particular 
occasion  and  temptation.  If  God  could  not  have  pre- 
vented sin  in  the  universe,  he  cannot  prevent  believers 
from  fatally  falling ;  he  cannot  prevent  Gabriel  and  Paul 
from  sinking  at  once  into  devils,  and  heaven  from  turning 
into  a  hell.  And  were  he  to  create  new  races  to  fill  the 
vacant  seats,  they  might  turn  to  devils  as  fast  as  he  created 
them,  in  spite  of  any  thing  that  he  could  do  short  of  de- 
stroying their  moral  agency.  He  is  liable  to  be  defeated 
in  all  his  designs,  and  to  be  as  miserable  as  he  is  benevo- 
lent. This  is  infinitely  the  gloomiest  idea  that  was  ever 
thrown  upon  the  world.  It  is  gloomier  than  hell  itself. 
For  this  involves  only  the  destruction  of  a  part,  but  that 
involves  the  wretchedness  of  God  and  his  whole  creation. 
And  how  awfully  gloomy  as  it  respects  the  prospects  of 
individual  believers  !  You  have  no  security  that  you  shall 
stand  an  hour.  And  even  if  you  get  to  heaven,  you  have 
no  certainty  of  remaining  there  a  day.  All  is  doubt  and 
sepulchral  gloom.  And  w^here  is  the  glory  of  God? 
Where  the  transcendent  glory  of  raising  to  spiritual  life 
a  world  dead  in  trespasses  and  sins  ?  Where  the  glory 
of   swaying  an  undivided  sceptre,  and  doing  his  whole 


OLD    AND    NEW    THEOLOGY.  35 

pleasure  ^  in  tlie  army  of  heaven  and  among  the  inhabi- 
tants of  the  earth?'  " — Griffin  on  Divine  Efficiency,  pp. 
180,  181. 

The  practical  influence  of  these  assumptions  is  be- 
lieved to  be  no  less  objectionable  than  their  tendencies  to 
error. 

1.  In  relation  to  prayer.  If  we  adopt  the  principle 
that  God  has  not  supreme  control  over  the  hearts  of  all 
men,  how  can  we  with  confidence  plead  the  fulfilment  of 
those  promises  which  are  to  be  accomplished  by  the  in- 
strumentality of  his  creatures  ?  However  willing  he  may 
be  to  answer  our  prayers,  there  may  be  found  among  the 
various  agents  to  be  employed,  some  Pharaoh,  so  much 
more  obstinate  than  the  king  of  Egypt,  that  no  influence 
which  God  can  employ,  will  incline  him  to  let  his  people 
go — or  some  Ahithophel,  so  much  more  sagacious  and 
influential  than  the  counsellor  of  Absalom,  that  the  Lord 
will  not  be  able  to  "  turn  his  counsel  to  foolishness,"  and 
bring  back  his  own  anointed  to  the  throne  of  Israel. 

2.  If  we  believe  ourselves  so  independent  of  God,  that 
we  can  successfully  resist  any  moral  influence  which  he 
can  bring  to  bear  upon  our  minds,  how  feeble  will  be  the 
incentives  to  the  exercise  of  humility  !  Tell  a  carnal, 
unregenerate  man,  that  though  God  had  physical  power 
to  create  him,  he  has  not  moral  power  to  govern  him,  and 
you  could  not  furnish  his  mind  with  better  aliment  for 
pride  and  rebellion.  Should  you,  after  giving  this  lesson, 
press  upon  him  the  claims  of  Jehovah,  you  might  expect 
to  be  answered,  as  Moses  was  by  the  proud  oppressor  of 
Israel :  "Who  is  the  Lord,  that  I  should  obey  his  voice?'* 

3.  The  same  may  be  said  in  regard  to  submission.     Of 
this,  the  case  just  referred  to  afibrds  an  ample  illustra- 


36  OLD    AND    NEW    THEOLOGY. 

tion.  What  a  miserable  reflection  it  would  have  been  to 
present  to  an  enslaved  Israelite,  that  he  ought  to  submit 
cheerfully  to  his  bondage,  because  it  was  not  in  the  power 
of  the  Lord  to  prevent  it !  Men  are  free  agents  :  in  the 
exercise  of  that  agency,  your  ancestors  would  settle 
themselves  in  Egypt — and  in  the  exercise  of  the  same 
agency,  the  Egyptians  would  enslave  them  !  God  knew 
that  such  would  be  the  result,  and  he  would  have  hindered 
it  if  he  could,  but  could  not,  without  destroying  their  free 
agency  !  "  Free  moral  agents  can  do  wrong  under  every 
possible  influence  to  prevent  it." 

4.  Such  reflections  aff'ord  as  little  foundation  for  grati- 
tude as  for  submission.  Why  do  we  feel  grateful  to  God 
for  those  favours  which  are  conferred  upon  us  by  the 
agency  of  our  fellow  men,  except  on  the  principle  that 
they  are  only  instruments  in  his  hand — who,  without 
"  offering  the  least  violence  to  their  wills,  or  taking  away 
the  liberty  or  contingency  of  second  causes,"  "hath  most 
sovereign  dominion  over  them,  to  do  by  them,  for  them, 
and  upon  them,  whatsoever  himself  pleaseth  !"  On  any 
other  ground,  tJiei/  would  be  worthy  of  the  principal,  and 
he  only  of  secondary  praise. 

In  conclusion,  we  will  observe,  (adopting  the  language 
of  the  "Views  in  Theology,"  already  referred  to),  "The 
great  questions  involved  in  this  controversy,  it  is  suffici- 
ently apparent  from  the  foregoing  discussion,  are  not  of 
mere  ordinary  interest,  but  vitally  important ;  and  the 
decisions  that  are  formed  respecting  them  by  the  teachers 
of  religion,  must  exert  a  momentous  influence  on  the 
churches  and  religion  of  our  country.  The  subjects  to 
which  they  relate — the  attributes  of  God,  the  reality  and 
nature  of  his  government,  the  doctrines  of  his  word,  the 


OLD    AND    NEW    THEOLOGY.  37 

nature  of  the  mind,  the  laws  of  its  agency,  the  causes 
that  influence  it — if  any  are  entitled  to  that  rank,  are 
fundamental :  and  the  problems  which  it  is  the  object  of 
the  controversy  to  solve,  whether  God  is  almighty  as  a 
moral  and  providential  Ruler  as  well  as  Creator,  or  weak 
and  liable  to  perpetual  frustration  ;  whether  he  is  wholly 
able  or  wholly  unable,  to  prevent  moral  beings  from 
sinning ;  whether  he  can  or  cannot  determine  and  foresee 
the  events  of  their  agency,  and  thence  whether  his  pre- 
dictions, threatenings  and  promises  are  true  or  false — 
indisputably  involve  all  that  is  essential  in  Christianity ; 
and  the  scheme  which  affirms  the  one  is  as  diverse  from 
that  which  asserts  the  other,  as  light  is  from  darkness, 
and  truth  from  falsehood."  ^'  The  question  between 
them,  is  nothing  less  than  the  question — of  two  wholly 
dissimilar  and  contradictory  systems,  which  is  it  that  is 
the  gospel  of  the  grace  of  God  ?  and  which  therefore  is  it 
that  wholly  contradicts  and  subverts  the  gospel  ?" 


CHAPTER  11. 

god's  covenant  with  ADAM,  AND  OUR  RELATION  TO  HIM  AS  OUR 
FEDERAL  HEAD  —  INVOLVING  THE  DOCTRINE  OF  IMPUTATION  AND 
ORIGINAL    SIN. 

According  to  Witsius,  "A  covenant  of  God  with  man 
is  an  agreement  between  God  and  man,  about  the  method 
of  obtaining  consummate  happiness,  with  the  addition  of 
a  threatening  of  eternal  destruction,  with  which  the 
despiser  of  the  happiness  oflered  in  that  way  is  to  be 
4 


38  OLD    AND    NEW    THEOLOGY. 

punislied."  Such  a  covenant  God  made  with  Adam 
before  the  fall ;  and  through  him  with  all  his  posterity — 
he  acting  as  their  federal  head  and  representative.  "  The 
first  covenant  made  with  man,"  says  our  Confession 
of  Faith,  "  was  a  covenant  of  works,  wherein  life  was 
promised  to  Adam,  and  in  him,  to  his  posterity,  upon 
condition  of  perfect  and  personal  obedience"  —  (as  our 
Catechism  adds),  "  forbidding  him  to  eat  of  the  tree  of 
knowledge  of  good  and  evil  upon  pain  of  death."  This 
has  been  the  common  sentiment  among  the  Reformed 
churches  since  the  time  of  Luther  and  Calvin.  It  also 
formed  a  part  of  the  creed  of  the  early  Christian  Fathers. 
Some  of  the  reasons  for  this  doctrine  are  the  following : 

1.  The  law  given  to  Adam  in  Gen.  ii.  16,  17,  con- 
tained all  the  essential  properties  of  a  covenant;  viz. 
parties,  a  condition,  a  penalty,  and  an  implied  promise. 
It  is  not  essential  to  a  covenant  that  the  parties  should 
be  equal — nor  was  it  necessary  in  the  present  case,  that 
Adam  should  give  a  formal  consent  to  the  terms  pro- 
posed ;  because  they  were  binding  upon  him  as  a  creature 
of  God,  independent  of  his  consent.  But  inasmuch  as 
he  was  created  in  the  image  of  God,  and  had  his  law 
written  in  his  heart,  there  was  undoubtedly  a  cordial 
assent  to  the  proposed  condition. 

2.  That  transaction  is  referred  to  by  the  prophet 
Hosea,  under  the  name  of  a  covenant.  ''  But  they  hke 
men  [Heb.  like  Adam,]  have  transgressed  the  covenant." 
Hosea  vi.  7.  Upon  this  passage  Henry  remarks,  "  Herein 
they  trod  in  the  steps  of  our  first  parents;  they,  like 
Adam,  have  transgressed  the  covenant ;  (so  it  might  very 
well  be  read) ;  as  he  transgressed  the  covenant  of  inno- 
cency,  so  they  transgressed  the  covenant  of  grace ;  so 


OLD    AND    NEW    THEOLOGY.  39 

treacherously,  so  foolishly ;  there  in  paradise,  he  violated 
his  engagements  to  God ;  and  there  in  Canaan,  another 
paradise,  they  violated  their  engagements.  And  by  their 
treacherous  dealing  they,  like  Adam,  have  ruined  them- 
selves and  theirs."  This  text  has  no  definite  sense,  un- 
less it  refers  to  Adam. 

3.  Christ  is  said  to  have  been  given  "  for  a  covenant 
of  the  people ;"  (Isa.  xlii.  6),  and  since  a  parallel  is 
drawn  by  the  apostles  between  Christ  and  Adam,  the 
latter  being  called  the  first,  and  the  former  the  second 
Adam,  the  analogy  requires  us  to  regard  the  first  Adam 
as  a  party  to  a  covenant. 

The  representative  character  of  Adam  may  be  proved 
by  the  following  considerations.  All  the  dispensations 
of  Jehovah  concerning  Adam  before  the  fall,  respected 
his  posterity  as  well  as  himself;  such  as  dominion  over 
the  creatures,  liberty  to  eat  of  the  productions  of  the 
earth,  the  law  of  marriage,  &c.  When  God  made  this 
covenant  with  Adam,  it  does  not  appear  that  Eve  was  yet 
formed — and  yet  it  is  manifest  from  her  reply  to  the 
tempter,  (Gen.  iii.  2,  3),  that  she  considered  herself  as 
included  in  the  transaction.  Again ;  it  is  said  (Gen.  v. 
2),  that  when  God  created  man  male  and  female,  he  called 
their  name  Adam ;  which  indicates  that  the  woman  was 
included  federally  in  the  man.  Further ;  the  conse- 
quences of  Adam's  transgression  affected  his  posterity 
as  well  as  himself.  Gen.  iii.  16,  19 ;  Rom.  v.  12 ;  1  Cor. 
XV.  22.  The  apostle  also  draws  a  parallel  between  Christ 
and  Adam  ;  in  which  he  describes  Christ  as  the  represen- 
tative of  his  spiritual  seed,  as  Adam  was  of  his  natural 
seed.  Rom.  v.  12,  19 ;  1  Cor.  xv.  22.  But  how  did 
Christ  represent  his  seed  except  in  the  covenant  of  grace  ? 


40  OLD    AND    NEW    THEOLOGY. 

Adam,  therefore,  must  haA^e  represented  his  in  the  cove- 
nant of  works. 

That  covenant  made  with  Adam,  and  through  him  with 
his  posterity,  involves  the  doctrines  of  imputation  and 
original  sin.  Destroy  that  and  you  destroy  these — they 
must  stand  or  fall  together.  And  as  they  are  both  based 
upon  the  same  covenant,  so  they  are  closely  connected 
with  each  other.  "  So  far  as  I  know,"  says  President 
Edwards,  "  most  of  those  who  hold  one  of  these  have 
maintained  the  other ;  and  most  of  those  who  have  op- 
posed one  have  opposed  the  other.  And  it  may  perhaps 
appear  in  our  future  consideration  of  the  subject,  that 
they  are  closely  connected,  and  that  the  arguments  which 
prove  the  one,  establish  the  other,  and  that  there  are  no 
more  difficulties  attending  the  allowing  of  one  than  the 
other." 

Upon  these  points  the  Confession  of  Faith  teaches, 
that  our  first  parents  "  being  the  root  of  all  mankind ; 
the  guilt  of  this  sin  [eating  the  forbidden  fruit]  was  im- 
puted, and  the  same  death  in  sin  and  corrupted  nature 
conveyed  to  all  their  posterity,  descending  from  them  by 
ordinary  generation" — and  that  ''from  this  original  cor- 
ruption, whereby  we  are  utterly  indisposed,  disabled,  and 
made  opposite  to  all  good,  and  wholly  inclined  to  all  evil, 
do  proceed  all  actual  transgressions."  The  phrase  "root 
of  all  mankind,"  it  is  evident  from  the  proof-texts,  refers 
not  merely  to  natural  relation,  but  also  to  covenant  head- 
ship ;  the  latter  being  the  principal  foundation  upon  which 
the  guilt  of  Adam's  first  sin  is  imputed  to  us ;  while  the 
former  is  the  channel  through  which  our  corrupted  nature 
is  conveyed.  "  Original  sin  is  conveyed  from  our  first 
parents  unto  their  posterity  by  natural  generation,  so  as 


OLD    AND    NEW    THEOLOGY.  41 

all  that  proceed  from  them  in  that  way,  are  conceived  and 
born  in  sin." — Larger  Catechism.  Imputation  regards 
us  as  being  responsible  in  law,  for  what  Adam  did  as  our 
representative — and  as  a  punishment  for  his  sin,  our  origi- 
nal righteousness  was  lost,  and  we  are  born  with  a  corrupt 
disposition.     That  is  what  is  meant  by  original  sin. 

As  President  Edwards  is  often  referred  to  as  a  standard 
author  on  these  points,  we  will  quote  a  few  sentences  from 
his  work  on  original  sin.  "  By  original  sin,"  says  he,  "  as 
the  phrase  has  been  most  commonly  used  by  divines,  is 
meant  the  innate  sinful  depravity  of  the  heart.  But  yet 
when  the  doctrine  of  original  sin  is  spoken  of,  it  is  vul- 
garly understood  in  that  latitude,  as  to  include  not  only 
the  depravity  of  nature,  but  the  imputation  of  Adam's 
first  sin ;  or,  in  other  words,  the  liableness  or  exposed- 
ness  of  Adam's  posterity  in  the  divine  judgment,  to  par- 
take of  the  punishment  of  that  sin." 

By  the  imputation  of  Adam's  sin  then,  according  to 
President  Edwards,  is  meant  liability  to  punishment  on 
account  of  his  sin — and  by  original  sin,  the  inherent  de- 
pravity of  our  nature.  This  we  believe  is  in  exact  ac- 
cordance with  our  standards,  as  they  are  understood  by 
our  most  approved  commentators. 

Dr.  Hodge,  in  his  commentary  on  the  Romans,  observes, 
"  This  doctrine  [of  imputation]  does  not  include  the  idea 
of  a  mysterious  identity  of  Adam  and  his  race ;  nor  that 
of  a  transfer  of  the  moral  turpitude  of  his  sin  to  his  de- 
scendants. It  does  not  teach  that  his  offence  was  person- 
ally or  properly  the  sin  of  all  men,  or  that  his  act  was, 
in  any  mysterious  sense,  the  act  of  his  posterity."  "  The 
sin  of  Adam,  therefore,  is  no  ground  to  us  of  remorse." 

"  This  doctrine  merely  teaches  that  in  virtue  of  the  union, 
4* 


42  OLD    AND    NEW    THEOLOGY. 

representative  and  natural,  between  Adam  and  his  pos- 
terity, his  sin  is  the  ground  of  their  condemnation,  that 
is,  of  their  subjection  to  penal  evils."  In  reference  to 
original  sin,  he  says,  "  It  is  not,  however,  the  doctrine  of 
the  Scriptures,  nor  of  the  reformed  churches,  nor  of  our 
standards,  that  the  corruption  of  nature  of  which  they  - 
speak,  is  any  depravation  of  the  soul,  or  an  essential 
attribute,  or  the  infusion  of  any  positive  evil."  "  These 
confessions  [of  the  Reformers]  teach  that  original  right- 
eousness was  lost,  and  by  that  defect  the  tendency  to  sin 
or  corrupt  disposition,  or  corruption  of  nature,  is  occa- 
sioned. Though  they  speak  of  original  sin  as  being  first 
negative,  i.  e.  the  loss  of  righteousness ;  and  secondly, 
positive,  or  corruption  of  nature ;  yet  by  the  latter,  they 
state,  is  to  be  understood,  not  the  infusion  of  any  thing 
in  itself  sinful,  but  an  actual  tendency  or  disposition  to 
evil  resulting  from  the  loss  of  righteousness."  As  some 
of  the  strongest  objections  to  these  doctrines  arise  either 
from  misunderstanding  or  misrepresenting  them,  the  only 
answer  which  is  necessary  in  many  instances,  is,  to  show 
that  the  doctrines  as  held  by  those  who  embrace  them, 
are  not  what  the  objector  supposes.  The  above  quota- 
tions will  serve  to  show  what  are  the  true  doctrines  on 
this  subject.  Some  of  the  proofs  by  which  they  are  sub- 
stantiated, together  with  such  remarks  as  may  occur  to 
us,  will  be  reserved  for  a  subsequent  chapter.* 

*  To  any  one  who  desires  particular  information  on  these  points, 
we  recommend  the  commentary  of  the  Rev.  Dr.  Hodge,  from  which 
we  have  just  quoted.  There  is  no  work  within  our  knowledge, 
which  to  us  is  so  clear  and  satisfactory  in  its  statements  and  rea- 
sonings on  this  subject,  and  we  believe  it  expresses  the  views  which 
are  generally  entertained  by  those  who  are  denominated  the  "  Old' 
school,^'  or  "  Orthodox^^  portion  of  the  Presbyterian  Church. 


OLD    AND    NEW    THEOLOGY.  43 

We  will  now  state  with  as  mucli  accuracy  as  we  are 
capable  of,  what  we  understand  to  be  the  New-school 
doctrines  in  reference  to  this  subject.  According  ^o  the 
New  Theology,  there  was  not,  in  the  proper  sense  of  the 
word,  any  covenant  made  with  Adam,  but  he  was  merely 
placed  under  a  law.  He  was  not  the  federal  head  or 
representative  of  his  posterity,  but  only  their  natural 
parent.  Though,  as  his  descendants,  we  feel  the  effects 
of  his  sin,  and  become  sinful  ourselves  in  consequence  of 
it,  the  doctrine  that  his  sin  was  imputed  to  us  is  unjust 
and  absurd.  All  sin  and  holiness  consist  in  acts.  To 
speak  of  a  sinful  or  holy  nature,  (except  in  a  figurative 
sense)  is,  therefore,  absurd.  When  Adam  was  created, 
he  was  neither  sinful  nor  holy,  but  he  acquired  a  holy 
character  by  the  performance  of  holy  acts,  i.  e.  by  choosing 
God  as  his  supreme  good,  and  placing  his  affections  upon 
him.  Jesus  Christ,  though  called  holy  at  his  birth,  was 
so  merely  in  the  sense  of  dedicated,  and  not  as  possessing 
(morally  considered)  a  holy  nature.  When  we  are  born 
we  possess  no  moral  character  any  more  than  brutes,  but 
we  acquire  a  moral  character  as  soon  as  we  arrive  at 
moral  agency,  and  put  forth  moral  acts.  In  the  sense  in 
"which  it  has  been  commonly  understood,  there  is  no  such 
thing  as  original  sin,  there  being  no  other  original  sin 
than  the  first  sin  a  child  commits  after  arriving  at  moral 
agency.  Children  are  born  with  the  same  nature  as  Adam 
possessed  at  his  creation — and  the  difference  between  us 
and  him  is,  that  we  are  born  in  different  circumstances  ; 
and  that  the  inferior  powers  of  our  nature  have  obtained 
greater  relative  strength ;  from  which  it  universally  results 
as  a  matter  of  fact,  that  our  first  acts  are  sinful,  instead 
of  being  holy,  as  his  were ;  i.  e.  we  do  not  choose  God  as 


44  OLD    AND    NEW    THEOLOGY. 

the  object  of  our  supreme  affection,  but  the  world — and 
tbis  choice  of  the  world  as  our  chief  good  is  what  consti- 
tutes human  depravity. 

Before  referring  to  our  authorities,  we  wish  to  observe 
that  those  who  hold  either  wholly  or  in  part  to  the  above 
doctrines,  have  not  entirely  laid  aside  the  use  of  the  terms 
covenant,  imputation,  original  sin,  &c. — but  they  employ 
them  in  a  different  sense  from  that  which  has  been  gene- 
rally attached  to  them  by  Calvinistic  writers. 

Mr.  Finney,  for  example,  uses  the  term  covenant,  in 
regard  to  the  transaction  between  God  and  Adam ;  and 
yet  he  denies  that  Adam  was  the  federal  head  of  his  pos- 
terity. His  doctrine  appears  to  be  that  all  mankind  were 
placed  prospectively  under  the  covenant  of  works,  and 
were  to  have  a  trial  or  probation,  each  one  for  himself, 
similar  to  what  Adam  had ;  and  that  from  their  connec- 
tion with  him  as  their  natural  parent,  it  so  happens  that 
they  all  break  the  covenant  as  soon  as  they  arrive  at 
moral  agency,  and  thus  become  sinners.  His  language 
is,  "I  suppose  that  mankind  were  originally  all  under  a 
covenant  of  works,  and  that  Adam  was  not  so  their  head 
or  representative,  that  his  obedience  or  disobedience  in- 
volved them  irresistibly  in  sin  and  condemnation,  irre- 
spective of  their  own  acts." — Lectures  to  Professing 
Christians,  p.  286.  Take  these  words  in  connection  with 
what  precedes,  and  their  import  will  be  more  obvious. 
*' It  has  been  supposed  by  many,"  says  he,  "that  there 
was  a  covenant  made  with  Adam  such  as  this,  that  if  he 
continued  to  obey  the  law  for  a  limited  period,  all  his  pos- 
terity should  be  confirmed  in  holiness  and  happiness  for 
ever.  What  the  reason  is  for  this  belief  I  am  unable  to 
ascertain:  I  am  not  aware  that  the  doctrine  is  taught  in 


OLD    AND    NEW    THEOLOGY.  45 

the  Bible."  Here  he  alhules  in  direct  terms  to  the  com- 
mon doctrine,  and  expresses  his  dissent  from  it.  But 
what  does  he  hold?  "Adam,"  says  he,  ^' was  the  na- 
tural head  of  the  human  race,  and  his  sin  has  involved 
them  in  its  consequences ;  but  not  on  the  principle  that 
his  sin  is  literally  accounted  their  sin."  \_Qusere :  Who 
does  maintain  this  opinion  ?]  "  The  truth,"  he  adds,  "is 
simply  this :  that  from  the  relation  in  which  he  stood  as 
their  nattiral  head^  as  a  matter  of  fact,  his  sin  has  re- 
sulted in  the  sin  and  ruin  of  his  posterity."  Then  follows 
what  we  first  quoted.  Thus  it  appears  that  though  he 
employs  the  term  "covenant  of  works,"  he  rejects  the 
doctrine  which  is  generally  entertained  by  those  who  use 
it.     He  intends  one  thing  by  it,  and  they  another. 

Mr.  Barnes,  in  the  seventh  edition  of  his  Notes  on  the 
Romans,  (p.  128),  uses  the  word  impute^  in  reference  to 
the  guilt  of  Adam's  first  sin ;  though  by  a  comparison 
between  his  remarks  here,  and  some  which  are  found  in 
other  parts  of  the  book,  it  is  evident  he  attaches  a  differ- 
ent meaning  to  the  word,  from  what  is  common  among 
Calvinistic  writers.  He  says,  (p.  95),  "  I  have  examined 
all  the  passages,"  where  the  word  occurs  in  the  Old  Tes- 
tament, "and  as  the  result  of  my  examination,  have 
come  to  the  conclusion  that  there  is  not  one  in  which  the 
word  is  used  in  the  sense  of  reckoning  or  imputing  to  a 
man  that  which  does  not  strictly  belong  to  him ;  or  of 
charging  on  him  that  which  ought  not  to  be  charged  on 
him  as  a  matter  of  personal  right.  The  word  is  never 
used  to  denote  imputing  in  the  sense  of  transferring,  or 
of  charging  that  on  one  which  does  not  properly  belong 
to  him.     The  same  is  the  case  in  the  New  Testament. 

The  word  occurs  about  forty  times,  and  in  a  similar 


46  OLD    AND    NEW    THEOLOGY. 

signification.  No  doctrine  of  transferring^  or  of  setting 
over  to  a  man  what  does  not  properly  belong  to  him,  be 
it  sin  or  holiness,  can  be  derived,  therefore,  from  this 
word." 

The  transfer  of  the  moral  turpitude  of  Adam's  sin  is 
no  part  of  the  doctrine,  as  held  by  its  advocates — but 
this  is  not  what  Mr.  Barnes  intends  to  deny ;  because  he 
expressly  informs  us,  that  by  transferring  he  means 
*'  setting  over  to  a  man  what  does  not  properly  belong  to 
him."  The  word  iynjjute^  then,  according  to  him,  is  never 
used  in  the  sense  of  "  setting  over  to  a  man  what  does 
not  properly  belong  to  him" — i.  e.  what  "  ought  not  to  be 
charged  on  him  as  a  matter  of  personal  right."  Nor  is 
this  doctrine  taught  in  any  of  these  passages.  How  dif- 
ferent is  this  from  the  language  of  Turrettin  and  Owen, 
as  quoted  by  Dr.  Hodge.  "  Imputation,"  says  the  former, 
"is  either  of  something  foreign  to  us,  or  of  something 
properly  our  own.  Sometimes  that  is  imputed  to  us  whiclx 
is  personally  ours  ;  in  which  sense  God  imputes  to  sinners 
their  transgressions.  Sometimes  that  is  imputed  to  us 
which  is  without  us,  and  not  performed  by  ourselves; 
thus  the  righteousness  of  Christ  is  said  to  be  imputed  to 
us,  and  our  sins  are  imputed  to  him  although  he  has  neither 
sin  in  himself,  nor  we  righteousness.  Here  we  speak  of 
the  latter  kind  of  imputation,  not  the  former,  because  we 
are  talking  of  a  sin  committed  by  Adam,  and  not  by  us. 

The  foundation,  therefore,  of  imputation,  is  not 

only  the  natural  connection  which  exists  between  us  and 
Adam,  since,  in  that  case,  all  his  sins  might  be  imputed 
to  us,  but  mainly  the  moral  and  federal,  in  virtue  of  which 
God  entered  into  covenant  with  him  as  our  head."  Owen 
says,  *'  Things  which  are  not  our  own  originally,  inhe- 


OLD    AND    NEW    THEOLOGY.  47 

rently,  may  yet  be  imputed  to  us,  ex  justttia,  by  the  rule 
of  righteousness.  And  this  may  be  done  upon  a  double 
relation  unto  those  whose  they  are.  1.  Federal.  2.  Na- 
tural. Things  done  by  one  may  be  imputed  unto  others, 
propter  relationem  foederalem,  because  of  a  covenant  re- 
lation between  them.  So  the  sin  of  Adam  was  imputed 
to  all  his  posterity.  And  the  ground  hereof  is,  that  we 
stood  in  the  same  covenant  with  him  who  was  our  head 
and  representative."  ....  ^'Nothing  is  intended  by  the 
imputation  of  sin  unto  any,  but  the  rendering  them  justly 
obnoxious  unto  the  punishment  due  unto  that  sin." 

Though,  therefore,  Mr.  Barnes  uses  the  word  impute, 
lie  does  not  mean  with  these  authors,  that  Adam's  pos- 
terity were  rendered  legally  liable  to  punishment  on  ac- 
count of  his  sin ;  but  only  that  they  are  "  subject  to  pain, 
and  death,  and  depravity,  as  the  consequence  of  his  sin;" 
^''subject  to  depravity  as  the  consequence ;'*  i.  e.  liable  to 
become  depraved  as  soon  as  they  arrive  at  moral  agency, 
on  account  of  their  being  descended  from  Adam,  who  was 
"the  head  of  the  race;"  and  who  having  sinned,  "se- 
cured as  a  certain  result  that  all  the  race  will  be  sinners 
also  ;"  such  being  "  the  organization  of  the  great  society 
of  which  he  was  the  head  and  father."  "  The  drunkard," 
says  he,  "  secures  as  a  result,  commonly,  that  his  family 
will  be  reduced  to  beggary,  want  and  woe.  A  pirate,  or 
a  traitor,  will  whelm  not  himself  only,  but  his  family  in 
ruin.  Such  is  the  great  law  or  constitution,  on  which 
society  is  now  organized ;  and  we  are  not  to  be  surprised 
that  the  same  principle  occurred  in  the  primary  organi- 
zation of  human  affairs."  Is  this  the  sense  in  which  our 
Confession  of  Faith  uses  the  word  impute  ?  We  leave  it 
for  the  reader  to  judge. 


48  OLD    AND    NEW    THEOLOGY. 

Professor  Fitch  of  New  Haven  has  not  laid  aside  the 
phrase  origi7ial  sin,  though  the  whole  drift  of  his  dis- 
courses on  the  nature  of  sin  is  inconsistent  with  the  com- 
mon doctrine,  and  was  doubtless  intended  to  overthrow  it. 
If  it  be  true,  according  to  him,  *'  that  sin,  in  every  form 
and  instance,  is  reducible  to  the  act  of  a  moral  agent,  in 
which  he  violates  a  known  rule  of  duty,"  how  can  it  be 
possible  that  there  is  any  such  thing  as  is  called  by  Presi- 
dent Edwards,  "  the  innate  sinful  depravity  of  the  heart  T^ 
Professor  Fitch  does  not  pretend  that  there  is — and  yet 
he  would  make  his  readers  believe  that  he  holds  to  origi- 
nal sin,  and  he  tells  us  in  one  of  his  inferences,  that  "  the 
subject  may  assist  us  in  making  a  right  explanation  of  the 
doctrine."  And  what  is  it  ?  "Nothing  can  in  truth  be 
called  original  sin,  but  his  first  moral  choice  or  preference 
being  evil."  One  can  hardly  exculpate  him  from  disin- 
genuousness  in  retaining  the  terms,  after  having  adopted 
principles  subversive  of  their  clear  import;  and  then 
employing  them  in  a  sense  materially  different  from  com- 
mon and  long  established  usage.  He  must  certainly  have 
known  that  his  definition  of  original  sin  is  strikingly  at 
variance  with  that  of  Calvin ;  who  describes  it  as  "  an 
hereditary  depravity  and  corruption  of  our  nature,  dif- 
fused through  every  part  of  the  soul,  which  first  makes 
us  obnoxious  to  the  wrath  of  God,  and  then  produces 
those  works  which  the  Scriptures  denominate  the  works 
of  the  flesh." 

We  have  extended  these  remarks  so  much  beyond  what 
we  anticipated,  that  the  quotations  we  intended  to  make 
in  proof  of  our  statement  concerning  the  New-school  doc- 
trines, must  be  reserved  for  another  chapter.  We  will 
therefore  close  the  present  chapter  with  a  few  appropriate 


OLD    AND    NEW    THEOLOGY.  49 

and  forcible  observations  of  the  Kev.  Dr.  Miller,  taken 
from  his  Letters  to  Presbyterians.  After  enumerating 
most  of  the  New-school  doctrines  which  are  brought  to 
view  in  this  chapter,  and  some  others  which  we  shall  notice 
hereafter,  he  says :  "If  Pelagian  and  semi- Pelagian 
sentiments  existed  in  the  fifth  century^  here  they  are  in 
all  their  unquestionable  and  revolting  features.  More 
particularly  in  regard  to  the  denial  of  original  sin,  and 
the  assertion  of  the  doctrine  of  human  ability,  Pelagius 
and  his  followers  never  went  further  than  some  of  the 
advocates  of  the  doctrines  above  recited.  To  attempt  to 
persuade  us  to  the  contrary,  is  to  suppose  that  the  record 
of  the  published  language  and  opinions  of  those  ancient 
heretics  is  lost  or  forgotten.  And  to  assert  that  these 
opinions  are  reconcilable  with  the  Calvinistic  system,  is 
to  offer  a  poor  compliment  to  the  memory  of  the  most 
acute,  learned  and  pious  divines,  that  ever  adorned  the 
Church  of  God,  from  the  days  of  Augustine  to  those  of 
the  venerable  band  of  Puritans,  who,  after  bearing  a  noble 
testimony  against  surrounding  errors  on  the  other  side  of 
the  Atlantic,  bore  the  lamp  of  truth  and  planted  the 
standard  of  Christ  in  this  western  hemisphere." 

These  observations  are  not  introduced  with  a  view  of 
influencing  the  reader  to  receive  the  statement  they  con- 
tain, on  the  mere  authority  of  a  venerable  name ;  nor  of 
forestalling  his  judgment  with  regard  to  the  points  under 
consideration.  All  that  we  expect  or  desire  is,  that  they 
will  influence  him  to  consider  the  controversy  not  as  con- 
sisting (as  some  profess  to  believe)  in  a  mere  "  strife  about 
words,''  but  as  involving  important  and  dangerous  errors; 
and  will  induce  him  to  give  such  attention  to  the  proofs 
we  are  about  to  exhibit,  and  to  other  sources  of  evidence 
5 


50  OLD    AND    NEW    THEOLOGY. 

to  wliich  he  may  have  access,  as  will  enable  him  to  ascer- 
tain to  his  entire  satisfaction,  whether  these  things  are 
so.  If  wise  and  good  men  now  concur  with  the  "  most 
acute,  learned  and  pious  divines  that  ever  adorned  the 
Church  of  God"  in  former  days,  in  judging  these  senti- 
ments to  be  heretical  and  pernicious  ;  they  claim  the  care- 
ful examination  of  those  who  attach  any  importance  to 
religious  truth,  and  desire  to  enjoy  its  invaluable  and  per- 
manent benefits. 


CHAPTER  III. 

THE  SUBJECT  OF  THE  PRECEDING  CHAPTER  CONTINUED,  EXHIBITING 
THE  NEW  THEOLOGY  CONCERNING  GOD's  COVENANT  WITH  ADAM,  AS 
THE  FEDERAL  HEAD  OF  HIS  POSTERITY,  IMPUTATION,  ORIGINAL  SIN, 
ETC. 

Our  statement  in  the  last  chapter  concerning  the  New 
Theology,  though  embraced  under  three  or  four  general 
heads,  involves  as  many  other  points,  which  either  grow 
out  of  the  former,  or  are  so  connected  with  them,  that 
our  views  of  the  one  will  materially  affect  our  sentiments 
concerning  the  other.  Accordingly,  in  that  statement, 
these  several  particulars  were  presented ;  but  they  are  so 
involved  in  each  other,  it  will  not  be  easy  in  our  quota- 
tions to  keep  them  entirely  distinct.  AVe  shall  therefore 
make  no  formal  divisions,  but  introduce  them  in  such 
order  as  we  find  most  convenient. 

We  will  suppose  ourselves  in  the  company  of  several 
prominent  ministers,  to  whom  a  gentleman  present  by  the 
name  of  Querist,  proposes  the  following  questions : 


OLD    AND    NEW    THEOLOGY.  51 

Querist. — Mr  Barnes,  I  have  recently  perused  your 
sermon  on  the  Way  of  Salvation,  and  your  Notes  on  the 
Romans.  Am  I  correct  in  supposing  that  you  deny  that 
any  covenant  was  made  with  Adam,  as  the  federal  head 
or  representative  of  his  posterity  ? 

Mr.  Barnes. — "  Nothing  is  said  of  a  covenant  with 
him.  No  where  in  the  Scriptures  is  the  term  covenant 
applied  to  any  transaction  with  Adam.  All  that  is  es- 
tablished here  is  the  simple  fact  that  Adam  sinned,  and 
that  this  made  it  certain  that  all  his  posterity  would  be 
sinners.  Beyond  this,  the  language  of  the  Apostle  does 
not  go ;  and  all  else  that  has  been  said  of  this,  is  the 
result  of  mere  philosophical  speculation." — Notes  on  the 
Romans,  1st  edition,  p.  128. 

Querist. — Was  not  Christ  the  covenant  head  of  his 
people,  and  does  not  the  Apostle  draw  a  parallel  between 
Adam  and  Christ  ? 

Mr.  Barnes.  —  "A  comparison  is  also  instituted  be- 
tween Adam  and  Christ  in  1  Cor.  xv.  22 — 25.  The  rea- 
son is,  not  that  Adam  was  the  representative  or  federal 
head  of  the  human  race,  about  which  the  Apostle  says 
nothing,  and  which  is  not  even  implied,  but  that  he  was 
the  first  of  the  race ;  he  was  the  fountain,  the  head,  the 
father ;  and  the  consequences  of  that  first  act,  introduc- 
ing sin  into  the  world,  could  be  seen  every  where.  The 
words  representative  and  federal  head  are  never  applied 
to  Adam  in  the  Bible.  The  reason  is,  that  the  word 
representative  implies  an  idea  which  could  not  have  ex- 
isted in  the  case  —  the  consent  of  those  who  are  repre- 
sented. Besides,  the  Bible  does  not  teach  that  they  acted 
in  him,  or  by  him ;  or  that  he  acted  for  them.     No  pas- 


52  OLDAKDNEW    THEOLOGY. 

sage  has  ever  yet  been  found  that  stated  this  doctrine." 
— Notes  on  the  Romans,  1st  edition,  pp.  120,  121. 

Querist. — I  perceive  that  in  the  later  editions  of  your 
Notes  the  above  phraseology  is  considerably  changed — • 
have  you  altered  your  sentiments  ? 

Mr.  Barnes. — "  Some  expressions  in  the  former  editions 
have  been  misunderstood;  some  are  now  seen  to  have 
been  ambiguous ;  a  few  that  have  given  offence  have  been 
changed,  because,  without  abandoning  any  principle  of 
doctrine  or  interpretation,  I  could  convey  my  ideas  in 
language  more  acceptable  and  less  fitted  to  produce 
offence." — Advertisement  to  the  fifth  edition.  "My 
views  have  never  changed  on  the  subject  that  I  can  now 
recollect."  —  3Ir.  Barnes's  Defence  before  the  Second 
Presbytery  of  Philadelphia,  in  June  and  July,  1835. 

Querist. — Do  you  then  deny  the  doctrine  of  imputa- 
tion ? 

Mr.  Barnes. — "  That  doctrine  is  nothing  but  an  effort 
to  explain  the  manner  of  an  event  which  the  Apostle 
did  not  think  it  proper  to  explain.  That  doctrine  is,  in 
fact,  no  explanation.  It  is  introducing  an  additional  dif- 
ficulty. For,  to  say  that  I  am  blameworthy,  or  ill-de- 
serving, for  a  sin  in  which  I  had  no  agency,  is  no  expla- 
nation, but  is  involving  me  in  an  additional  difficulty, 
still  more  perplexing,  to  ascertain  how  such  a  doctrine 
can  possibly  be  just." — Notes  on  the  Romans,  7th  edition, 
pp.  121,  122.  "  Christianity  does  not  charge  on  men 
crimes  of  which  they  are  not  guilty.  It  does  not  say,  as 
I  suppose,  that  the  sinner  is  held  to  be  personally  answer- 
able for  the  transgressions  of  Adam,  or  of  any  other 
man." — Sermon  on  the  Way  of  Salvation. 

Querist. — You  cannot  be  ignorant,  sir,  that  these  views 


OLD    AND    NEW    THEOLOGY.  53 

are  at  variance  with  the  sentiments  of  Calvinistic  writers. 
The  5th  chapter  of  Komans  has  been  universally  consid- 
ered as  teaching  this  doctrine.  President  Edwards  says : 
"  As  this  place,  in  general,  is  very  full  and  plain,  so  the 
doctrine  of  the  corruption  of  nature,  derived  from  Adam, 
and  also  the  imputation  of  his  fii^st  sin,  are  both  clearly 
taught  in  it.  The  imputation  of  Adam's  one  transgres- 
sion, is,  indeed,  most  directly  and  frequently  asserted. 
We  are  here  assured  that  by  one  man's  sin,  death  passed 
upon  all ;  all  being  adjudged  to  this  punishment,  as  having 
sinned  (so  it  is  implied)  in  that  one  man's  sin.  And  it  is 
repeated  over  and  over,  that  all  are  condemned,  many 
are  dead,  many  made  sinners,  &c.,  by  one  man's  oflfence, 

by  the  disobedience  of  one,  and  by  one  offence." 

*'  Though  the  word  impute  is  not  used  with  respect  to 
Adam's  sin,  yet  it  is  said,  all  have  sinned ;  which,  re- 
specting infants,  can  be  true  only  of  their  sinning  by  this 
sin.  And  it  is  said,  by  his  disobedience  many  were  made 
sinners  ;  and  judgment  came  upon  all  by  that  sin  ;  and 
that  by  this  means,  death  (the  wages  of  sin)  passed  on  all 
men  J  &c.,  which  phrases  amount  to  full  and  precise  ex- 
planations of  the  word  impute;  and,  therefore,  do  more 
certainly  determine  the  point  really  insisted  on." — Ed- 
wards on  Original  Sin,  vol.  2,  pp.  512,  517. 

Mr.  Barnes. — "  It  is  not  denied  that  this  [my]  lan- 
guao-e  varies  from  the  statements  which  are  often  made 
on  the  subject,  and  from  the  opinion  which  has  been 
entertained  by  many  men.  And  it  is  admitted  that  it 
does  not  accord  with  that  used  on  the  same  subject  in  the 
Confession  of  Faith,  and  in  other  standards  of  doctrine. 
The  main  difference  is,  that  it  is  difficult  to  affix  any  clear 
and  definite  meaning  to  the  expression  '  we  sinned  in  him. 
5* 


54  OLD    AND    NEW    THEOLOGY. 

and  fell  with  him.'  It  Is  manifest,  so  far  as  it  is  capable 
of  interpretation,  that  it  is  intended  to  convey  the  idea, 
not  that  the  sin  of  Adam  is  imputed  to  us,  or  set  over  to 
our  account ;  but  that  there  was  a  personal  identity  con- 
stituted between  Adam  and  his  posterity,  so  that  it  was 
really  our  act,  and  ours  only,  after  all,  that  is  chargeable 
on  us.  This  was  the  idea  of  Edwards.  The  notion  of 
IMPUTING  sin  is  an  invention  of  modern  times  ;  and  it  is 
not,  it  is  believed,  the  doctrine  of  the  Confession  of 
Faith."  ..."  Christianity  affirms  the  fact,  that,  in  con- 
nection with  the  sin  of  Adam,  or  as  a  result,  all  moral 
agents  in  this  world  will  sin,  and  sinning,  will  die. — Rom. 
V.  12 — 19.  It  does  not  affirm,  however,  any  thing  about 
the  mode  in  which  this  would  be  done.  There  are  many 
ways  conceivable,  in  which  that  sin  might  secure  the 
result,  as  there  are  many  ways  in  which  all  similar  facts 
may  be  explained.  The  drunkard  commonly  secures,  as 
a  result,  the  fact,  that  his  family  will  be  beggared,  illite- 
rate, perhaps  profane  or  intemperate.  Both  facts  are 
evidently  to  be  explained  on  the  same  priyiciple  as  a  part 
of  moral  government." — Note  to  his  Sermon  on  the  Way 
of  Salvation. 

Querist. — Are  these  the  views  of  the  other  gentlemen 
present  ? 

Mr.  Duffield. — "  If  by  [the  union  of  representation] 
is  meant  nothing  more  than  that  Adam  did  not  act  exclu- 
sively for  himself,  but  that  his  conduct  was  to  determine 
the  character  and  conduct  of  those  that  should  come  after 
him,  we  will  not  object.  But  if  it  is  meant  to  designate 
ony  positive  procedure  of  Grod,  in  which  he  made  Adam 
to  stand,  and  required  him  to  act,  as  the  substitute  of  the 
persons  of  his  offspring,  numerically  considered,  and  by 


OLD    AND    NEW    THEOLOGY.  55 

name,  head  for  head,  so  that  they  might  be  held,  as  in 
commercial  transactions,  personally  liable  for  this  sin,  as 
being  guilty  copartners  with  him  in  it,  we  certainly  may 
require  other  and  better  proof  than  what  is  commonly 
submitted." — Duffield  on  Regeneration,  p.  391. 

Querist. — I  know  of  no  one  who  holds  the  doctrine 
precisely  as  you  have  stated  it.  But  let  me  inquire  whether 
you  believe  there  existed  any  legal  union  between  Adam 
and  his  posterity  on  account  of  his  being  their  covenant- 
head  ;  and  that  the  guilt  of  his  first  sin  was  imputed  to 
them,  or  set  over  in  law  to  their  account,  so  that  they 
were  thereby  subjected  to  penal  evils  ? 

Mr.  Duffield. — "  Whpn  it  is  said,  in  the  second  com- 
mandment, that  God  visits  the  iniquities  of  the  fathers 
upon  the  children,  unto  the  third  and  fourth  generation," 
will  it  be  contended  that  this  is  because  the  former  stood 
as  the  representatives  of  the  latter,  acting  legally,  in  their 
name,  and  for  them?  We  presume  not.  And  yet  stronger 
language  cannot  be  employed  to  denote  the  results  which 
flow  from  Adam's  sin,  by  virtue  of  our  connection  with 
him.  Why,  then,  must  we  suppose  that  there  is  a  prin- 
ciple in  the  one  case  different  from  that  in  the  other  ? 
And  that  what  seems  to  flow  out  of  the  natural  relation 
between  parent  and  children,  and  to  be  the  natural  con- 
sequence of  such  relation,  must  be  attributed  to  a  legal 
U7iion  or  moral  identity  between  Adam  and  his  offspring  V" 
— Duffield  on  Regeneration,  p.  392. 

Querist. — According  to  this  view,  what  becomes  of  the 
old  doctrine  of  original  sin,  as  consisting  in  the  corrup- 
tion or  depravity  of  our  nature  ?  The  doctrines  of  impu- 
tation and  a  corrupt  nature  have  been  regarded  as  so 
closely  connected,  that  the  denial  of  the  former  involved 


56  OLD    AND    NEW    THEOLOGY. 

the  rejection  of  the  latter — and  the  same  proofs  which 
have  been  relied  upon  to  establish  the  one,  have  generally 
been  adduced  to  defend  the  other.  Thus,  President 
Edwards,  in  the  passage  already  referred  to,  says  :  "And 
the  doctrine  of  original  dejjravity  is  also  here  taught, 
[i.  e.  in  Rom.  v.  12 — 21,]  where  the  Apostle  says,  hy  one 
7nan  sin  entered  into  the  world ;  having  a  plain  respect 
(as  hath  been  shown)  to  that  universal  corrwption  and 
wickedness,  as  well  as  guilt,  which  he  had  before  largely 
treated  of."  Is  original  sin  to  be  given  up;  or  so  modi- 
fied as  to  become  an  entirely  different  doctrine  ? 

l)r.  Beecher.  —  "  The  Reformers  with  one  accord, 
taught  that  the  sin  of  Adam  was  imputed  to  all  his  pos- 
terity, and  that  a  corrupt  nature  descends  from  him  to 
every  one  of  his  posterity,  in  consequence  of  which  in- 
fants are  unholy,  unfit  for  heaven,  and  justly  exposed  to 
future  punishment.  Their  opinion  seems  to  have  been, 
that  the  very  substance  or  essence  of  the  soul  was  de- 
praved, and  that  the  moral  contamination  extended  alike 
to  all  its  powers  and  faculties,  insomuch  that  sin  became 
a  property  of  every  man's  nature,  and  was  propagated 
as  really  as  flesh  and  blood."  .  .  "Our  Puritan  fathers 
adhered  to  the  doctrine  of  original  sin,  as  consisting  in 
the  imputation  of  Adam's  sin,  and  in  a  hereditary  de- 
pravity;  and  this  continued  to  be  the  received  doctrine 
of  the  churches  of  New  England  until  after  the  time  of 
Edwards.  He  adopted  the  views  of  the  Reformers  on 
the  subject  of  original  sin,  as  consisting  in  the  imputa- 
tion of  Adam's  sin,  and  a  depraved  nature,  transmitted 
by  descent.  But  after  him  this  mode  of  stating  the  sub- 
ject was  gradually  changed,  until  long  since,  the  pre- 
vailing doctrine  in  New  England  has  been,  that  men  are 


OLD    AND    NEW    THEOLOGY.  'ol 

not  guilty  of  Adams  sin^  and  that  depravity  is  not  of 
the  substance  of  the  soul,  nor  an  inherent  or  physical 
quality,  but  is  wholly  voluntary,  and  consists  in  a  trans- 
gression of  the  law,  in  such  circuynstances  as  constitute 
accountability  and  desert  of  punishment." — Dr.  Beecher's 
Controversy  with  the  editor  of  the  Christian  Examiner 
in  the  Spirit  of  the  Pilgrims,  in  1828,  as  quoted  in  the 
Biblical  Repertory."^ 

Querist. — Am  I  to  understand  by  these  remarks,  that 
the  doctrine  of  a  sinful  or  corrupt  nature  has  been  aban- 
doned ? 

Dr.  Beecher. — "  Neither  a  holy  nor  a  depraved  nature 
is  possible  without  understanding,  conscience,  and  choice. 
To  say  of  an  accountable  creature,  that  he  is  depraved 
by  nature,  is  only  to  say  that,  rendered  capable  by  his 
Maker  of  obedience,  he  disobeys  from  the  commencement 
of  his  accountability."  ....  "A  depraved  nature  can 
no  more  exist  without  voluntary  agency  and  accountabil- 
ity, than  a  material  nature  can  exist  without  solidity  and 

extension." "If,  therefore,  man  is  depraved  by 

nature,  it  is  a  voluntary  and  accountable  nature  which  is 
depraved,  exercised  in  disobedience  to  the  law  of  God." 
.  .  .  .  "Native  depravity,  then,  is  a  state  of  the  affec- 
tions in  a  voluntary  accountable  creature,  at  variance 
with  divine  requirement,  from  the  beginning  of  accoun- 
tability."— Sermon  on  the  Native  Character  of  Man. 

*  Since  writing  this  chapter,  we  have  seen  the  number  of  the 
Spirit  of  the  Pilgrims,  in  which  the  above  is  found,  with  Dr. 
Beecher's  own  signature.  In  his  "Views  in  Theology,"  he  appears 
to  speak  a  different  language — language  not  easily  reconciled  with 
the  above  quotation.  But  as  he  does  not  profess  to  have  changed 
his  sentiments,  the  preceding  must  be  regarded  as  expressing  his 
opinions. 


58  OLD    AND    NEW    THEOLOGT. 

Mr.  Finney. — "All  depravity  [is]  voluntary — consist- 
ing in  voluntary  transgression.  [It  is]  the  sinner's  own 
act.  Something  of  his  own  creation.  That  over  which 
he  has  a  perfect  control,  and  for  which  he  is  entirely 
responsible.  0  !  the  darkness  and  confusion,  and  utter 
nonsense  of  that  view  of  depravity  which  exhibits  it,  as 
something  lying  back,  and  the  cause  of  all  actual  trans- 
gression."— Sermons  on  Important  Subjects,  p.  139. 

Querist. — Does  all  sin,  then,  consist  in  acts  9 

Professor  Fitch. — "  Sin,  in  every  form  and  instance, 
is  reducible  to  the  act  of  a  moral  agent,  in  which  he 
violates  a  known  rule  of  duty." — Discourses  on  the  Ma- 
ture of  S{71. 

Querist. — By  parity  of  reasoning,  all  holiness  must 
likewise  consist  in  acts. 

Mr.  Finney. — "All  holiness  in  God,  angels,  or  men, 
must  be  voluntary,  or  it  is  not  holiness."  ....  "When 
Adam  was  first  created,  and  awoke  into  being,  before  he 
had  obeyed  or  disobeyed  his  Maker,  he  could  have  had 
no  moral  character  at  all ;  he  had  exercised  no  affections, 
no  desires,  nor  put  forth  any  actions.  In  this  state  he 
was  a  complete  moral  agent ;  and  in  this  respect  in  the 
image  of  his  Maker :  but  as  yet  he  could  have  had  no 
moral  character ;  for  moral  character  cannot  be  a  subject 
of  creation,  but  attaches  to  voluntary  actions." — Sermons 
on  Important  Subjects,  pp.  7,  10,  11. 

Querist. — If  these  views  are  correct,  what  must  be 
said  concerning  infants  ?  Are  they  neither  sinful  nor 
holy? 

Mr.  Duffield. — "  It  is  a  question  alike  pertinent  and 
important,  whether  in  the  incipient  period  of  infancy  and 
childhood  there  can  be  any  moral  character  whatever  pos- 


OLD    AND    NEW    THEOLOGY.  59 

sessed.  Moral  character  is  character  acquired  by  acts 
of  a  moral  nature.  Moral  acts  are  those  acts  which  are 
contemplated  by  the  law,  prescribing  the  rule  of  human 
conduct."  .  .  .  ^'  It  is  obvious  that  in  infancy  and  inci- 
pient childhood,  when  none  of  the  actions  are  deliberate, 
or  the  result  of  motive,  operating  in  connection  with  the 
knowledge  of  law,  and  of  the  great  end  of  all  human  ac- 
tions, no  moral  character  can  appropriately  be  predicated.'* 
.  .  "  Properly  speaking,  therefore,  we  can  predicate  of  it 
neither  sin  nor  holiness,  personally  considered." — Duf- 
field  on  Regeneration,  pp.  377,  378,  379. 

Querist. — Was  not  Jesus  Christ  lioly  from  his  birth  ? 

Mr.  Duffield. — "  Things  inanimate  have,  in  scriptural 
parlance,  sometimes  been  called  lioly,  as  the  inmost 
chamber  of  the  temple  was  called  the  holy  of  holies ;  but 
then  it  was  because  of  some  especial  and  peculiar  rela- 
tionship which  it  had  to  God.  He  dwelt  in  it.  It  was 
set  apart  as  pre-eminently  and  exclusively  appropriate  to 
God.  In  this  sense  the  yet  unconscious  human  nature 
of  Christ  may  be  denominated  holy,  for  it  was  the  habi- 
tation of  God,  and  singularly  and  exclusively  appropriate 
to  him,  differing  in  this  respect  essentially  and  entirely 
from  that  of  any  of  the  descendants  of  Adam." — Duffield 
on  Regeneration,  p.  353. 

Querist. — If  infants  are  not  sinful  before  they  arrive 
at  moral  agency,  and  have  no  legal  or  covenant  connec- 
tion with  Adam  as  their  representative,  how  can  you 
account  for  their  death  ? 

Mr.  Duffield. — '^  There  is  no  manner  of  necessity,  in 
order  to  account  for  the  death  of  infants,  to  suppose  that 
the  sin  of  Adam  became  their  personal  sin,  either  in 
respect  of  its  act,  or  its  ill  desert.     Their  death  eventu- 


60  OLD    AND    NEW    THEOLOGY. 

ates  according  to  tliat  law  of  dependence,  whicli  marks 
the  whole  government  of  God  in  this  world,  by  virtue  of 
which  the  consequences  of  the  act  of  one  man  terminate 
ofttimes  on  the  person  of  another,  when  there  is  not  the 
union  of  representation." — Duffield  on  Regeneration^  p. 
389. 

Professor  Goodrich,  of  New  Haven. — ''  Infants  die. 
The  answer  has  been  given  a  thousand  times  ;  brutes  die 
also.  But,  ....  animals  are  not  subjects  of  the  moral 
government  of  God.  Neither  are  infants  previous  to 
moral  agency  ;  for  what  has  moral  government  to  do  with 

those  who  are  not  moral  agents  ?" "Animals,  and 

infants  previous  to  moral  agency  do,  therefore,  stand  on 
precisely  the  same  ground  in  reference  to  this  subject. 
Suffering  and  death  afford  no  more  evidence  of  sin  in  the 
one  case  than  in  the  other." — Christian  Spectator^  1829, 
p.  373  —  attributed  to  Professor  Goodrich. 

Querist. — If  infants  do  not  possess  a  corrupt  nature, 
please  to  inform  me  by  what  process  they  become  sinful 
— and  how  it  happens  that  not  one  of  the  human  family 
born  in  the  ordinary  way  has  ever  escaped  this  cata- 
strophe. 

Professor  Goodrich. — "A  child  enters  the  world  with 
a  variety  of  appetites  and  desires,  which  are  generally 
acknowledged  to  be  neither  sinful  nor  holy.  Committed, 
in  a  state  of  utter  helplessness,  to  the  assiduity  of  pa- 
rental fondness,  it  commences  existence,  the  object  of 
unceasing  care,  watchfulness,  and  concession  to  those 
around  him.  Under  such  circumstances  it  is  that  the 
natural  appetites  are  first  developed,  and  each  advancing 
month  brings  them  new  objects  of  gratification.  The 
obvious  consequence  is,  that  self-indulgence  becomes  the 


OLD    AND    NEW    THEOLOGY.  61 

master  principle  in  the  soul  of  every  child,  long  before  it 
can  understand  that  this  self-indulgence  will  interfere 
with  the  rights  or  intrench  on  the  happiness  of  others. 
Thus,  by  repetition,  is  the  force  of  constitutional  pro- 
pensities accumulating  a  bias  towards  self-gratification^ 
which  becomes  incredibly  strong,  before  a  knowledge  of 
duty  or  a  sense  of  right  and  wrong  can  possibly  have 
entered  the  mind.     That  moment — -the  commencement 

of  moral  agency,  at  length  arrives." ^'  Why  then 

is  it  so  necessary  to  suppose  some  distinct  evil  propen- 
sity— some  fountain  of  iniquity  in  the  breast  of  the  child 

previous  to  moral  action?" ''But  let  us  look  at 

facts.  Angels  sinned.  Was  the  cause  which  led  to  their 
first  act  of  rebellion,  in  itself  sinful  ?  Eve  was  tempted 
and  fell.  Was  her  natural  appetite  for  food,  or  her  desire 
for  knowledge — to  which  the  temptation  was  addressed — 
a  sinful  feeling  ?  And  why  may  not  our  constitutional 
propensities  now  lead  to  the  same  result  at  the  com- 
mencement of  moral  agency,  as  was  actually  exhibited 
in  fallen  angels  and  our  first  parents,  even  when  advanced 
in  holiness?"  ....  "Did  not  vehement  desire  produce 
sin  in  Adam's  first  act  of  transgression  ?  Was  there  any 
previous  principle  of  depravity  in  him  ?  Why  then  may 
not  strong  constitutional  desires  be  followed  now  by  a 
choice  of  their  objects  as  well  as  in  the  case  of  Adam  V 
— Christian  Spectator,  1829,  pp.  366,  367,  368. 

Mr.  Duffield. — The  infant  "is  placed  in  a  rebellious 
world,  subject  to  the  influence  of  ignorance,  with  very 
limited  and  imperfect  experience,  and  liable  to  the  strong 
impulses  of  appetite  and  passion."  .  .  .  .  "  Instinct,  ani- 
mal sensation,  constitutional  susceptibilities  create  an  im- 
pulse, which  not  being  counteracted  by  moral  considerar 
6 


62  OLD    AND    NEW    THEOLOGY. 

tions  or  gracious  influence,  lead  the  will  in  a  wrong  di- 
rection and  to  wrong  objects.  It  was  thus  that  sin  was 
induced  in  our  holy  progenitors.  No  one  can  plead  in 
Eve  an  efficient  cause  of  sin  resident  in  her  nature  (any 
prava  vis)  or  operative  power,  sinful  in  itself,  anterior  to 
and  apart  from  her  own  voluntary  acts.  And  if  she  was 
led  into  sin,  though  characteristically  holy,  and  destitute 
of  any  innate  propensity  to  sin,  where  is  the  necessity 
for  supposing  that  the  sins  of  her  progeny  are  to  be  re- 
ferred to  such  a  cause?"  .  .  .  .  "  Temptation  alone  is  suf- 
ficient under  present  circumstances." — Duffield  on  He- 
generation,  pp.  310,  379,  380. 

Mr.  Finney. — "  If  it  be  asked  how  it  happens  that 
children  universally  adopt  the  principle  of  selfishness, 
unless  their  nature  is  sinful,  I  answer,  that  they  adopt 
the  principle  of  self-gratification  or  selfishness,  because 
they  possess  human  nature,  and  come  into  being  under 
the  peculiar  circumstances  in  which  all  the  children  of 
Adam  are  born  since  the  fall ;  but  not  because  human 
nature  is  itself  sinful.  The  cause  of  their  becoming 
sinners  is  to  be  found  in  their  nature  being  what  it  is, 
and  surrounded  by  the  peculiar  circumstances  of  tempta- 
tion to  which  they  are  exposed  in  a  world  of  sinners."  .  . 
"Adam  was  created  in  the  perfection  of  manhood,  cer- 
tainly not  with  a  sinful  nature,  and  yet  an  appeal  to  his 
innocent,  constitutional  appetites  led  him  into  sin.  If 
Kdult  Adam,  without  a  sinful  nature,  and  after  a  season 
•^f  obedience  and  perfect  holiness,  was  led  to  change  his 
mind  by  an  appeal  to  his  innocent,  constitutional  propen- 
sities, how  can  the  fact  that  infants  possessing  the  same 
nature  with  Adam,  and  surrounded  by  circumstances  of 
still  greater  temptation,  universally  fall  into  sin,  prove 


OLD    AND    NEW    THEOLOGY.  63 

ttat  their  nature  is  itself  sinful  ?  Is  such  an  inference 
called  for  ?  Is  it  legitimate  ?  What !  holy  and  adult 
Adam  is  led,  by  an  appeal  to  his  innocent  constitution, 
to  adopt  the  principle  of  selfishness,  and  no  suspicion  is 
or  can  be  entertained,  that  he  had  a  sinful  nature ;  but 
if  little  children  under  circumstances  of  temptation, 
aggravated  by  the  fall,  are  led  into  sin,  we  are  to  believe 
that  their  nature  is  sinful !  This  is  wonderful  philoso- 
phy!" —  Sermons  on  Important  Subjects,  p.  157. 

Dr.  Taylor. — "  If  no  being  can  sin  without  a  constitu- 
tional propensity  to  sin,  how  came  Adam  to  sin  ?  If  one 
being,  as  Adam,  can  sin,  and  did  in  fact  sin  without  such 
a  propensity  to  sin,  why  may  not  others  ?" — Spirit  of  the 
Pilgrims,  vol.  6,  p.  13,  as  quoted  by  Dow. 

Querist. — Do  you  accord.  Dr.  Taylor,  with  the  senti- 
ment just  expressed  by  Mr.  Finney,  that  "  infants  pos- 
sess the  same  nature  with  Adam"  at  his  creation? 

Dr.  Taylor. — "  Mankind  come  into  the  world  with  the 
same  nature  in  kind  as  that  with  which  Adam  was  created." 
— Ibid.  vol.  6,  p.  5. 

Querist. — What  influence  then  has  the  fall  exerted  on 
the  posterity  of  Adam  ? 

Dr.  Taylor.  —  "I  answer,  that  it  may  have  been  to 
change  their  nature,  not  in  kind,  but  degree." — Ibid, 
vol.  6,  p.  12. 

Querist. — On  the  supposition  that  the  nature  of  Adam 
and  that  of  his  posterity  were  alike  in  kind,  why  did  not 
he  sin  as  soon  as  he  commenced  his  moral  existence  ? 

Dr.  Taylor. — "  I  answer,  that  the  reason  may  have 
been,  that  his  nature  differed,  not  in  kind,  but  in  degree 
from  that  of  his  posterity." — Ibid, 

Querist. — On  this  principle,  in  what  respect  did  the 


64  OLD    AND    NEW    THEOLOGY. 

human  nature  of  Christ  diifer  from  that  of  other  child- 
ren ? — and  if  he  possessed  in  his  human  nature,  what 
other  children  possess,  why  did  he  not  exhibit  the  same 
moral  character  ? 

Dr.  Taylor.  —  "I  might  answer  as  before,  that  his 
human  nature  may  have  differed  from  that  of  other  child- 
ren not  in  kind,  but  degree.'' — Ibid, 

We  have  given  the  preceding  quotations  at  consider- 
able length,  that  those  readers  who  may  not  have  attended 
to  the  controversy,  may  perceive  from  their  own  state- 
ments, its  various  bearings  and  tendencies ;  and  how  far 
those  have  gone  who  have  been  bold  enough  to  follow  out 
their  principles  to  their  legitimate  and  full  results.  We 
do  not  attribute  to  all  whose  names  we  have  introduced, 
every  sentiment  which  has  been  advanced  by  some  of 
them — but  it  cannot  fail,  we  think,  to  strike  the  mind  of 
the  reader  that  there  is  such  an  affinity  between  the 
several  parts  of  the  series,  that  the  man  who  adopts  one 
of  the  doctrines  in  this  category,  will  be  in  great  danger 
of  ultimately  embracing  the  whole.  They  all  belong  to 
the  same  system ;  and  ought  therefore  to  be  introduced 
in  stating  the  distinguishing  features  of  the  New  The- 
ology ;  though  many  who  adhere  to  the  system  in  part, 
do  not  go  to  the  ne  plus  ultra  of  the  scheme,  as  it  is  here 
exhibited.  -^ 


OLD    AND    NEW    THEOLOGY.  65 


CHAPTER  IV. 

REMARKS    ON    IMPUTATION,    ORIGINAL    SIN,    ETC.,  WITH    REFERENCE    TO 
THE  VIEWS  PRESENTED  IN  THE  PRECEDING  CHAPTER. 

The  controversy  respecting  our  connection  with  Adam, 
and  the  influence  produced  upon  us  by  the  fall,  com- 
menced early  in  the  fifth  century,  when  Pelagius,  a  British 
monk,  published  opinions  at  variance  with  the  common 
doctrines  of  the  church.  He  and  his  followers  enter- 
tained substantially  the  same  views  which  have  been 
exhibited  in  the  preceding  chapter ;  though  they  adopted 
a  method  somewhat  different  to  account  for  the  commis- 
sion of  sin  by  little  children,  and  went  fui-ther  in  their 
views  concerning  the  influence  of  Adam's  sin  upon  his 
descendants.  They  maintained  that  "  the  sin  of  Adam 
injured  himself  alone,  and  did  not  affect  his  posterity ;" 
and  that  we  sin  only  by  "imitation."  But  their  senti- 
ments concerning  the  nature  of  sin,  original  sin,  and 
imputation,  were  the  same  with  those  which  distinguish 
the  New  Theology. 

Concerning  the  first,  Pelagius  says,  "And  here,  in  my 
opinion,  the  first  inquiry  ought  to  be.  What  is  sin  ?  Is 
it  a  substance,  or  is  it  a  mere  name  devoid  of  substance ; 
not  a  thing,  not  an  existence,  not  a  body,  nor  any  thing 
else  (which  has  a  separate  existence)  but  an  act ;  and  if 
this  is  its  nature,  as  I  believe  it  is,  how  could  that  which 
is  devoid  of  substance  debilitate  or  change  human  na- 
ture?"   "Every  thing,  good  or  evil,  praiseworthy 

6* 


66  OLD    AND    NEW    THEOLOGY. 

or  censurable,  wliicli  we  possess,  did  not  originate  with 
us,  but  is  done  hy  us  ;  for  we  are  born  capable  both  of 
good  and  evil,  but  not  in  possession  of  these  qualities ; 
for  in  our  birth  we  are  equally  destitute  of  virtue  and 
vice ;  and  previously  to  moral  agency,  there  is  nothing 
in  man  but  that  which  God  created  in  him." — Biblical 
Repertory. 

This  question  concerning  the  nature  of  sin  was  re- 
garded as  decisive  concerning  the  other  two ;  and  it  was 
introduced  by  Pelagius  with  that  view.  Says  he,  "It  is 
disputed  concerning  this,  whether  our  nature  is  debili- 
tated and  deteriorated  by  sin.  And  here,  in  my  opinion, 
the  first  inquiry  ought  to  be,  What  is  sin  9"  &c.  So  it 
is  regarded  at  the  present  time.  Says  Mr.  Finney,  "In 
order  to  admit  the  sinfulness  of  nature,  we  must  believe 
sin  to  consist  in  the  substance  of  the  constitution,  instead 
of  voluntary  action,  which  is  a  thing  impossible." — Ser- 
mons on  Important  Subjects,  p.  158. 

Mr.  Duffield,  after  stating  several  things  which  he 
supposes  may  be  meant  by  the  phrase  original  sin,  gives 
as  the  views  of  the  Westminster  divines,  that  it  denotes 
"  something  which  has  the  power  to  originate  sin,  and 
which  is  necessarily  involved  in  our  very  being,  from  the 
first  moment  of  its  origination."  This  he  intimates  was 
intended  by  the  expression  in  our  Catechism,  "  the  cor- 
ruption of  our  whole  nature."  He  then  says,  (after  some 
preliminaries)  "  It  is  strange  that  ever  it  should  have  been 
made  a  question,  whether  sin  may  be  predicated  of  being 
or  simple  existence,  since  sin  is  undeniably  an  act  of  a 
moral  character,  and  therefore  can  only  be  committed  by 
one  who  is  possessed  of  moral  powers,  i.  e.  one  who  is 
capable  of  acting  according  as  the  law  requires  or  pro- 


OLD    AND    NEW    THEOLOGY.  67 

hibits." '^  Holiness,  or  sin,  wliich  is  its  opposite, 

has  a  direct  and  immediate  reference  to  those  voluntary 
acts  and  exercises,  which  the  law  is  designed  to  secure  or 

prevent." "How  very  absurd,  therefore,  is  it  to 

predicate  sin  of  that  which  does  not  fall  under  cognizance 
of  law  at  all!"  Though  he  uses  the  phrase  "being  or 
simple  existence,"  as  that  concerning  which  it  is  absurd 
to  predicate  sin,  he  refers  unquestionably  to  the  expres- 
sion in  the  Catechism  which  he  had  just  quoted,  and  upon 
which  he  was  remarking,  viz.  "  the  corruption  of  our 
whole  nature."  It  is  absurd,  therefore,  according  to 
him,  to  speak  of  our  having  a  corrupt  nature,  since,  as 
he  maintains,  all  sin  consists  in  voluntary  acts  of  a  moral 
agent,  in  violation  of  a  known  law.  Hence  the  imputa- 
tion of  Adam's  first  sin  to  his  posterity,  and  original  sin, 
are  rejected  as  unphilosophical  and  absurd. 

Says  Pelagius,  "  When  it  is  declared  that  all  have 
sinned  in  Adam,  it  should  not  be  understood  of  any  origi- 
nal sin  contracted  by  their  birth,  but  of  imitation."  .... 
"  How  can  a  man  be  considered  guilty  by  God  of  that 
sin  which  he  knows  not  to  be  his  own  ?  for  if  it  is  neces- 
sary, it  is  not  his  own ;  but  if  it  is  his  own,  it  is  volun- 
tary; and  if  voluntary,  it  can  be  avoided." 

Julian,  one  of  the  disciples  of  Pelagius,  says,  "  Who- 
ever is  accused  of  a  crime,  the  charge  is  made  against 
his  conduct,  and  not  against  his  birth,"  .  .  .  "Therefore 
we  conclude  that  the  triune  God  should  be  adored  as 
most  just ;  and  it  has  been  made  to  appear  most  irre- 
fragably,  that  the  sin  of  another  never  can  be  imputed 
by  him  to  little  children."  .  .  .  "  Hence  that  is  evident 
which  we  defend  as  most  reasonable,  that  no  one  is  born 
in  sin,  and  that  God  never  judges  men  to  be  guilty  on 


68  OLD    AND    NEW    THEOLOGY. 

account  of  their  birth." "  Children,  inasmuch  as 

they  are  children,  never  can  be  guilty,  until  they  have 
done  something  by  their  own  proper  will." — Biblical 
Repertory. 

How  striking  is  the  resemblance  between  these  views 
and  the  following  remarks  of  Mr.  Barnes  :  "  When  Paul," 
says  he,  "states  a  simple  fact,  men  often  advance  a 
theory.  ...  A  melancholy  instance  of  this  we  have  in  the 
account  which  the  apostle  gives  (ch.  5),  about  the  effect 

of  the  sin  of  Adam They  have  sought  for  a  theory 

to  account  for  it.  And  many  sujopose  they  have  found  it 
in  the  doctrine  that  the  sin  of  Adam  is  imputed,  or  set 
over  by  an  arbitrary  arrangement  to  beings  otherwise 
innocent,  and  that  they  are  held  to  be  responsible  for  a 
deed  committed  by  a  man  thousands  of  years  before  they 
were  born.  This  is  the  theory  ;  and  men  insensibly  for- 
get that  it  is  mere  theory.''  ....  "I  understand  it,  there- 
fore, [Rom.  V.  12,]  as  referring  to  the  fact  that  men  sin 
in  their  own  persons,  sin  in  themselves — as  indeed  how 
can  they  sin  in  any  other  way?" — Notes  on  the  Romans, 
pp.  10,  IIT. 

We  admit  that  this  coincidence  between  the  New-school 
doctrines  and  Pelagianism,  does  not  afford  certain  proof 
of  their  being  untrue.  It  is  however  a  strong  presump- 
tive evidence,  since  Pelagianism  has  been  rejected  as 
heretical  by  every  Evangelical  Church  in  Christendom. 

Coelestius,  a  disciple  of  Pelagius,  is  said  to  have  been 
more  zealous  and  successful  in  the  propagation  of  these 
errors  than  his  master.  Hence,  in  early  times,  they  were 
perhaps  associated  with  his  name,  more  than  with  that  of 
Pelagius.  Among  other  Councils  which  condemned  his 
heresy,  was  the  Council  of  Ephesus,  A.  D.  431;  which 


OLD    AND    NEW    THEOLOGY.  69 

"  denominated  it  the  wicked  doctrine  of  Coelestius." — 
Biblical  lle'pertory. 

In  a  number  of  the  Confessions  of  Faith  adopted  by 
different  churches  after  the  Reformation,  Pelagianism  is 
mentioned  by  name.  Thus,  in  one  of  the  Articles  of  the 
Episcopal  Church,  it  is  said,  "  Original  sin  standeth  not 
in  the  following  oi  Adam  (as  the  Pelagians  do  vainly 
talk),  but  it  is  the  fault  and  corruption  of  the  nature  of 
every  man,  that  naturally  is  engendered  of  the  offspring 
of  Adam.^  whereby  man  is  very  far  gone  from  original 
righteousness,  and  is  of  his  own  nature  inclined  to  evil." 

Though  in  the  Westminster  Confession,  this  heresy  is 
not  expressly  named,  there  can  be  no  doubt  that  the 
framers  intended  to  reject  and  condemn  it.  Compare 
the  preceding  doctrines  of  Pelagius  and  his  followers  with 
our  quotations  from  the  Confession  of  Faith  in  chap.  iii. ; 
also  the  following  from  the  Larger  Catechism :  "  The 
sinfulness  of  that  estate  whereinto  man  fell,  consisteth 
in  the  guilt  of  Adam's  first  sin,  the  want  of  that  right- 
eousness wherein  he  was  created,  and  the  corruption  of 
his  nature,  whereby  he  is  utterly  indisposed,  disabled, 
and  made  opposite  unto  all  that  is  spiritually  good,  and 
wholly  inclined  to  all  evil,  and  that  continually :  which 
is  commonly  called  original  sin,  and  from  which  do  pro- 
ceed all  actual  transgressions." 

We  have  said  that  the  denial  of  the  doctrine  of  impu- 
tation and  original  sin,  arises  in  part  from  the  adoption 
of  the  theory  that  all  sin  consists  in  acts.  Upon  this 
point,  therefore,  it  will  be  pertinent  to  make  a  few  re- 
marks. 

1.  Holiness  and  sin  are  predicated  of  the  heart.  Thus 
the  Bible  speaks  of  an  honest  and  good  heart,  a  broken 


70  OLD    AND    NEW    THEOLOGY. 

heart,  a  clean  heart,  an  evil  heart,  a  hard  heart,  &c., 
■which  convey  the  idea  that  there  is  something  in  man  of 
a  moral  character,  prior  to  his  acts — something  which 
forms  the  basis  from  which  his  good  and  evil  actions  pro- 
ceed ;  and  which  determines  the  character  of  those  actions. 
Hence  holiness  and  sin  do  not  consist  wholly  in  acts,  but 
belong  to  our  nature. 

2.  We  are  said  to  be  conceived  and  born  in  sin ;  and 
if  so,  we  must  be  sinfi^l  bt/  nature  ;  for  we  have  not  then 
put  forth  any  moral  acts. 

3.  We  are  declared  to  be  by  nature  the  children  of 
"wrath — and  if  children  of  wrath  by  nature,  then  we  must 
be  by  nature,  sinners,  for  sin  alone  exposes  to  wrath. 
All  sin  therefore  cannot  consist  in  acts. 

4.  Adam  was  created  in  the  image  of  God — which 
according  to  our  standards,  consisted  in  "  knowledge, 
righteousness,  and  holiness."  By  the  fall  this  image 
was  lost.  In  regard  to  spiritual  things  we  became  igno- 
rant.— *'The  natural  man  discerneth  not  the  things  of 
the  Spirit  of  God,"  &c.  Our  moral  characters  became 
corrupt  and  wicked.  In  other  words,  we  forfeited  our 
original  righteousness  and  became  prone  to  e\dl.  By 
regeneration  this  image  is  restored.  Col.  iii.  10  :  "And 
have  put  on  the  new  man  which  is  renewed  in  knowledge 
after  the  image  of  him  that  created  him."  Eph.  iv.  24: 
"And  that  ye  put  on  the  new  man,  which  after  God  is 
created  in  righteousness  and  true  holiness."  These  texts 
are  decisive  as  to  what  the  image  of  God  consisted  in, 
viz.  "knowledge,  righteousness  and  true  holiness."  Yet 
in  this  image  man  was  created;  and  of  course  possessed 
it  before  he  put  forth  moral  acts.     Consequently  all  holi- 


OLD    AND    NEW    THEOLOGY.  71 

ness  and  sin  do  not  consist  in  acts^  but  maj  be  predicated 
of  our  nature. 

The  manner  in  which  this  argument  has  been  disposed 
of,  is  truly  singular.  On  the  principle  that  all  holiness 
consists  in  acts,  it  cannot  be  created.  This  the  advocates 
of  the  New  Theology  admit.  Since  then,  Adam  was 
created  in  the  image  of  God,  a  new  theory  must  be  de- 
vised as  to  what  that  image  was.  In  this,  however,  there 
is  not  a  perfect  agreement.  According  to  Mr.  Finney, 
it  consisted  in  moral  agency.  "  In  this  state,"  says  he, 
[i.  e.  when  Adam  was  first  created,]  ''  he  was  a  complete 
moral  agent,  and  in  this  respect  in  the  image  of  his 
Maker.'' — Sermons  on  Important  Subjects,  p.  11.  Mr. 
Duffield  makes  it  consist  principally  in  some  imaginary 
resemblance  to  the  Trinity.  "  There  is,  however,"  says 
he,  "  one  important  respect  in  which  this  resemblance  iu 
man  to  God  may  be  seen,  which,  indeed,  is  generally 
overlooked,  but  which  we  are  disposed  to  think  is  of  'prin- 
cipal consequence.  It  is  not  one  person  of  the  Godhead 
only  who  is  represented  as  speaking  at  the  formation  of 
man,  but  the  whole  three.  Jehovah,  the  ever  blessed 
Three  in  One,  said,  "  Let  us  make  man  in  our  image" — 
not  in  the  image  of  any  one  person,  nor  of  each  dis- 
tinctly, but  of  all  conjointly.  How  admirably  are  the 
distinct  personality  and  essential  unity  of  the  Godhead 
represented  or  imaged  in  man  possessing  three  distinct 
kinds  of  life,  and  yet  constituting  but  one  moral  being ! 
In  him  are  united  the  vegetable,  the  animal,  and  the 
moral  or  spiritual  life,  each  having  and  preserving  its 
distinct  character,  but  all  combined  in  one  responsible 
individual." — Duffield  07i  Regeneration,  p.  143. 


72  OLD    AND    NEW    THEOLOGY. 

What  a  pity  tlie  apostle  Paul  had  not  understood  and 
embraced  this  improved  theory  concerning  the  nature  of 
sin  and  holiness,  before  he  penned  those  passages  de- 
scribing the  image  of  God  in  which  man  was  created,  and 
to  which  we  are  restored  by  divine  grace  !  How  much 
more  rational  and  philosophical,  are  these  new  views, 
than  the  old  theology  of  that  apostle ! 

5.  It  will  be  perceived  by  the  preceding  remarks,  that 
this  doctrine  involves  also  a  new  theory  of  regeneration. 
This  is  not  denied — and  hence  the  sentiments  which  have 
long  prevailed  on  this  subject  are  rejected,  and  the  notion 
of  gradual  regeneration  by  moral  suasion,  is  substituted 
in  their  place.  But  as  we  intend  to  exhibit  this  feature 
of  the  New  Theology  more  at  length  in  a  subsequent 
chapter,  w^e  will  not  dwell  upon  it  here. 

6.  This  doctrine  places  those  who  die  in  infancy  in  a 
most  unenviable  position.  If  all  sin  and  holiness  consist 
in  the  voluntary  acts  of  a  moral  agent,  infants,  before 
arriving  at  moral  agency,  have  no  moral  character ;  but 
stand  in  respect  to  moral  government  on  the  same  level 
with  brute  animals.  This  is  the  New-school  doctrine. 
Since,  therefore,  thousands  die  in  infancy,  where  do  they 
go  ?  If  they  have  no  moral  character,  the  blessings  of 
the  gospel  are  no  more  adapted  to  them,  than  to  the 
brutes.  Hence  if  they  die  before  they  become  moral 
agents,  they  must  either  be  annihilated,  or  spend  an  eter- 
nity in  some  unknown  and  inconceivable  state  of  existence 
— neither  in  heaven  nor  hell,  but  possibly  between  the 
two — in  some  limhus  infantum,  similar,  perhaps,  to  that 
of  the  Papists ;  yet  with  this  advantage  in  favour  of  the 
latter,  that  their  infants,  possessing  moral  character,  may 
be  renewed  and   saved.     What  a  comfortless   doctrine 


OLD    AND    NEW    THEOLOGY.  73 

must  tliis  be  to  parents,  when  weeping  by  the  cradle  of  ' 
expiring  infancy  !* 

7.  The  death  of  infants  affords  strong  proof  of  the 
doctrine  of  imputation  and  original  sin.  If  there  is  no 
legal  connection  between  us  and  Adam,  if  his  sin  is  not 
imputed  to  us,  and  we  are  7iot  horn  with  a  corrupt  nature, 
where  is  the  justice  of  inflicting  upon  infants  who  have 
never  committed  actual  transgression,  a  part  of  the 
penalty  threatened  upon  Adam  for  his  disobedience  ? 

8.  The  doctrine  of  imputation  aifords  the  only  evidence 
we  can  have,  that  those  dying  in  infancy  are  saved.  If 
Adam's  sin  was  not  imputed  to  them  for  their  condemna- 
tion, how  can  the  righteousness  of  Christ  be  imputed  to 
them  for  their  justification  ?  Christ  came  to  "  seek  and 
save  that  which  was  lost" — "to  save  sinners" — he  saves 
no  others.  If,  therefore,  they  were  not  lost  in  Adam — 
if  they  were  not  made  sinners  by  his  sin — Christ  did  not 
come  to  save  them.  But  he  did  come  to  save  such.  He 
says,  ''  Suffer  little  children  to  come  unto  me  and  forbid 
them  not,  for  of  such  is  the  kingdom  of  heaven."  They 
are  therefore  sinners  —  and  as  they  lost  their  original 
righteousness  through  the  first  Adam,  the  foundation  was 
laid  for  their  restoration  and  salvation  through  the  second. 
On  any  other  principle  there  would  be  no  hope  in  their 

*  The  manner  in  which  the  advocates  of  the  New  Theology 
attempt  to  relieve  themselves  from  this  difficulty,  is  the  following, 
viz.  that  the  atonement  places  those  who  die  in  infancy  in  such 
ch'cum stances  in  the  next  world,  as  to  result  in  their  becoming  holy 
at  the  commencement  of  moral  agency.  But  this  supposition  has 
no  foundation  in  Scripture.  Christ  is  never  represented  as  enter- 
ing our  world  to  prevent  men  from  becoming  sinners,  but  to  savo 
those  who  were  sinners  already. 

7 


74  OLD    AND    NEW    THEOLOGY. 

case.     But  here  is  ground  for  consolation.     In  the  lan- 
guage of  Dr.  Watts, 

"A  thousand  new-born  babes  are  dead, 
By  fatal  union  to  their  head  : 
But  -whilst  our  spirits,  filled  with  awe, 
Behold  the  terrors  of  thy  law, 
We  sing  the  honours  of  thy  grace, 
That  sent  to  save  our  ruined  race : 
Adam  the  second,  from  the  dust 
"Raises  the  ruins  of  the  first." 

9.  The  doctrine  of  imputation  is  essential  to  a  correct 
view  of  the  plan  of  salvation.  As  Dr.  Hodge  has  well 
expressed  it :  "  The  denial  of  this  doctrine  involves  also 
the  denial  of  the  scriptural  view  of  the  atonement  and 
justification.  It  is  essential  to  the  scriptural  form  of 
these  doctrines  that  the  idea  of  legal  substitution  should 
be  retained.  Christ  bore  our  sins ;  our  iniquities  were 
laid  upon  him ;  which,  according  to  the  true  meaning  of 
Scripture  language,  can  only  signify,  that  he  bore  the 
punishment  of  those  sins ;  not  the  same  evils  indeed 
either  in  kind  or  degree  ;  but  still  penal,  because  judi- 
cially inflicted  for  the  support  of  law This  idea  of 

legal  substitution  enters  also  into  the  scriptural  view  of 
justification.  In  justification,  according  to  Paul's  lan- 
guage, God  imputes  righteousness  to  the  ungodly.  This 
righteousness  is  not  their  own ;  but  they  are  regarded 
and  treated  as  righteous  on  account  of  the  obedience  of 
Christ.  That  is,  his  righteousness  is  so  laid  to  their 
account,  or  imputed  to  them,  that  they  are  regarded  and 
treated  as  if  it  were  their  own,  or  as  if  they  had  kept 
the  law." — Hodge  on  the  Romans^  pp.  127,  128. 


dLD    AND    NEW    THEOLOGY.  75 

The  connection  of  imputation  with  the  work  of  Christ, 
gives  to  this  doctrine  its  chief  importance.  The  same 
principle  is  applied  in  the  Bible  both  to  Adam  and  Christ. 
If,  therefore,  we  deny  our  legal  connection  with  Adam, 
and  the  imputation  of  his  first  sin  to  his  posterity,  we 
must  necessarily  adopt  views  concerning  the  method  of 
salvation  by  Jesus  Christ,  materially  different  from  those 
above  given.  On  the  supposition  that  the  principle  of 
representation  is  inadmissible  in  the  case  of  Adam,  it 
must  be  equally  so  in  reference  to  Christ.  If  we  cannot 
be  condemned  in  law  by  the  disobedience  of  the  one,  we  can- 
not be  justified  by  the  obedience  of  the  other.  A  blow 
is  thus  struck  at  the  foundation  of  our  hope ; — a  blow, 
which,  if  it  destroys  our  connection  with  Adam,  destroys 
also  our  connection  with  Christ,  and  our  title  to  heaven. 

Says  Owen,  "  By  some  the  imputation  of  the  actual 
apostacy  and  transgression  of  Adam,  the  head  of  our 
nature,  whereby  his  sin  became  the  sin  of  the  world,  is 
utterly  denied.  Hereby  both  the  ground  the  apostle  pro- 
ceedeth  on,  in  evincing  the  necessity  of  our  justification, 
or  our  being  made  righteous  by  the  obedience  of  another, 
and  all  the  arguments  brought  in  confirmation  of  the  doc- 
trine of  it,  in  the  fifth  chapter  of  his  Epistle  to  the  Bo- 
mans,  are  evaded  and  overthrown.  Socinus  confesseth 
that  place  to  give  great  countenance  unto  the  doctrine  of 
justification  by  the  imputation  of  the  righteousness  of 
Christ ;  and  therefore  he  sets  himself  to  oppose  with 
sundry  artifices  the  imputation  of  the  sin  of  Adam  unto 
his  natural  posterity.  For  he  perceived  well  enough  that 
upon  the  admission  thereof,  the  imputation  of  the  right- 
eousness of  Christ  unto  his  spiritual  seed  would  unavoid- 
ably follow,  according  unto  the  tenor  of  the  apostle's  dis- 


76  OLD    AND    NEW    THEOLOGY. 

course."  ..."  Some  deny  the  depravation  and  corruption 
of  our  nature,  which  ensued  on  our  apostacy  from  God, 
and  the  loss  of  his  image.     Or  if  they  do  not  absolutely 
deny  it,  yet  they  so  extenuate  it,  as  to  render  it  a  matter 
of  no  great  concern  unto  us."  .  .  .  .  "  That  deformity  of 
soul  which  came  upon  us  in  the  loss  of  the  image  of  God, 
wherein  the  beauty  and  harmony  of  all  our  faculties,  in 
all  their  actings,  in  order  unto  their  utmost  end,  did  con- 
sist ;  that  enmity  unto   God,   even  in  the  mind  which 
ensued  thereon ;    that  darkness  with  which    our  under- 
standings were  clouded,  yea,  blinded  withal ;  the  spirit- 
ual death  which  passed  on  the  whole  soul,  and  total  alien- 
ation from  the  life  of  God;  that  impotency  unto  good, 
that  inclination  unto  evil,  that  deceitfulness  of  sin,  that 
power  and  efficacy  of  corrupt  lusts,  which  the  Scriptures 
and  experience  so  fully  charge  on  the  state  of  lost  na- 
ture, are  rejected  as  empty  notions,  or  fables.     No  wonder 
if  such  persons  look  upon  imputed  righteousness  as  the 
shadow  of  a  dream,  who  esteem  those  things  which  evi- 
dence its  necessity  to  be  but  fond  imaginations.     And 
small  hope  is  there  to  bring  such  men  to  value  the  right- 
eousness of  Christ,  as  imputed  to  them,  who  are  so  unac- 
quainted with  their  own  unrighteousness  inherent  in  them." 
10.  The  Scripture  proofs  relied  upon  to  establish  the 
doctrine  of  imputation  and  original  sin,  are  such  as  the 
following.     John  iii.  3,  6  :  "  Except  a  man  be  born  again 
he  cannot  see  the  kingdom  of  God.     That  which  is  born 
of  the  flesh  is  flesh,  and  that  wliich  is  born  of  the  Spirit 
is  spirit."     Here  our  first  or  natural  birth  is  contrasted 
with  our  second  or  spiritual  birth.     If  at  the  first  we  are 
unfit  for  the  kingdom  of  heaven,  and  are  qualified  only 
by  the  second,  then  it  is  clear  we  are  horn  sinners. 


OLD    AND    NEW    THEOLOGY.  77 

Rom.  V.  12 — 21.  ^'As  by  one  man  sin  entered  into  the 
world  and  death  by  sin,  so  death  passed  upon  all  men, 
for  that  all  have  sinned,"  &c.  We  have  already  quoted 
some  remarks  on  this  passage  from  President  Edwards, 
in  the  last  chapter,  to  which  we  refer  the  reader.  The 
quotation  commences  as  follows :  "  The  doctrine  of  the 
corruption  of  nature,  derived  from  Adam,  and  also  the 
imputation  of  his  first  sin,  are  both  clearly  taught  in  it," 
&c.  The  phrases,  "  for  that,  or  in  whom  all  have  sinned,'' 
"through  the  offence  of  one  many  be  dead,''  "the  judg- 
ment was  by  one  to  condemnation,''  "by  one  man's  offence, 
death  reigned  by  one,"  "  by  one  man's  disobedience  many 
were  made  sinners,''  and  other  similar  ones,  contain  so 
exact  a  description  of  the  doctrine,  that  the  proof  which 
they  furnish  would  not  be  more  conclusive,  if  the  very 
words  impute  and  original  sin  had  been  introduced." 

Rom.  vii.  18 — 23.  "  For  I  know  that  in  me  (that  is  in 
my  flesh)  dwelleth  no  good  thing ;  for  to  will  is  present 
with  me  ;  but  how  to  perform  that  which  is  good,  I  find 
not,"  &c.  This  struggle  between  the  old  and  new 
man,  between  indwelling  sin  and  the  principle  of  grace, 
affords  strong  evidence  of  the  natural  propensity  of  man 
to  sin.  "" 

1  Cor.  XV.  22.  "  For  as  in  Adam  all  die,  even  so  in 
Christ  shall  all  be  made  alive."  By  simply  reversing  the 
order  of  the  passage,  its  relevancy  to  our  present  purpose 
will  be  manifest.  As  all  who  shall  be  made  alive  will 
enjoy  this  blessing  by  virtue  of  their  connection  with 
Christ  as  their  covenant  head ;  so  all  who  die,  experience 
this  calamity  in  consequence  of  a  similar  connection  with 
Adam ;  who  "  being  the  root  of  all  mankind,  the  guilt  of 
[his  first  sin]  was  imputed,  and  the  same  death  in  si7i, 
7* 


78  OLDANDNEW    THEOLOGY. 

and  corrupted  nature,  conveyed  to  all  his  posterity,  de- 
scending from  him  by  ordinary  generation." 

Eph.  ii.  3.  "And  were  by  nature  the  children  of  wi'ath, 
even  as  others."  This  has  been  generally  understood, 
both  by  ancient  and  modern  commentators,  as  teaching 
the  doctrine  that  we  are  born  in  a  state  of  sin  and  con- 
demnation. If  we  are  children  of  wrath  by  nature,  we 
must  have  been  horn  in  that  condition ;  and  if  born  chil- 
dren of  wrath,  we  must  have  been  born  in  sin. 

In  the  Old  Testament,  the  following  among  others  may 
be  referred  to.  Gen.  vi.  5 :  "And  God  saw  that  the 
wickedness  of  man  was  great  in  the  earth,  and  every  im- 
agination of  the  thoughts  of  his  heart  was  only  evil  con- 
tinually." This  is  descriptive  not  of  one  man  only,  but 
of  -the  race ;  and  how  can  this  universal  corruption  be 
accounted  for  except  on  the  principle  of  original  sin  ? 
Job  xiv.  4  :  "  Who  can  bring  a  clean  thing  out  of  an  un- 
clean ?  not  one."  If,  then,  parents  are  "unclean,"  if 
they  are  universally  sinful,  children  inherit  from  them 
the  same  character.  Psalm  li.  5  :  "  Behold,  I  was  shapen 
in  iniquity,  and  in  sin  did  my  mother  conceive  me."  This 
is  an  express  declaration  that  the  Psalmist  was  conceived 
in  sin ;  and  if  it  was  true  of  him,  it  is  true  of  all  others. 
These  three  passages,  taken  in  connection,  form  a  com- 
plete syllogism  in  support  of  this  doctrine.  If  the  first 
of  them  is  applicable  to  all  mankind,  as  appears  from  the 
similarity  of  that  description  and  those  given  by  David 
and  Paul ;  and  if  the  two  latter  exhibit  the  fountain  from 
w^hich  the  evil  imaginations  of  the  heart  take  their  rise, 
as  they  appear  clearly  to  indicate  ;  then  all  men  possess  a 
depraved  and  sinful  nature,  inherited  from  their  parents. 

As  the  chief  object  of  the  present  volume  is  to  exhibit 


OLD    AND    NEW    THEOLOGY.  79 

the  difference  between  the  Old  and  New  Theology,  we 
have  not  thought  it  expedient  to  enter  largely  upon  the 
proofs  in  favour  of  the  former.  But  what  has  been 
adduced  is  sufficient,  we  think,  to  show  the  truth  of  the 
Old  system,  in  opposition  to  the  New,  and  to  serve  as  a 
kind  of  index  to  a  more  minute  and  extensive  examina- 
tion of  the  subject. 

Before  closing  the  chapter  we  will  make  a  few  remarks 
on  the  charge  of  injustice,  which  is  brought  against  the 
views  entertained  by  the  Old-school  divines,  with  regard 
to  this  subject.  We  believe  it  to  be  wholly  unfounded ; 
but  against  the  opposite  theory  it  might  be  made  to  lie 
with  great  force.  Does  any  one  pronounce  it  unjust  for 
a  man  to  be  held  liable  for  a  debt  contracted  by  one  of 
his  ancestors,  provided,  in  becoming  his  heir,  that  was 
made  one  of  the  legal  conditions  by  which  he  should  in- 
herit his  estate  ?  But  suppose  he  had  no  legal  connection 
with  him  at  all,  but  simply  the  relation  of  natural  descent 
— which,  according  to  the  New-school  doctrine,  is  our  only 
connection  with  Adam — where  would  be  the  justice  in 
holding  him  responsible  for  the  payment  of  his  ancestor's 
debts  ?  He  sustains  to  him,  remember,  no  legal  connec- 
tion, but  is  held  responsible,  merely  because  he  is  his 
descendant.  Is  this  just  ? — Since  then  all  are  obliged  to 
admit  that  we  suffer  evils  in  consequence  of  Adam's  sin, 
w^hy  not  adopt  the  scripture  doctrine,  that  being  included 
with  him  in  the  covenant  of  ivorks,  we  became  legally/ 
involved  in  the  ruin  brought  upon  the  world  by  his  sin  ? 
This  covenant  or  legal  connection,  renders  it  just  that 
we  should  inherit  these  calamities — but  on  any  other 
principle  their  infliction  upon  us   cannot   be  easily  ex- 


80  OLD    AND    NEW    THEOLOGY. 

plained,  without  bearing  painfully  upon  the  justice  of 
God's  dispensations. 

Such  is  the  organization  of  human  governments,  that 
"we  are  usually  connected  in  law  with  those  from  whom 
we  have  descended — and  there  is  a  fitness  and  propriety 
in  this  arrangement.  Hence,  unless  special  provision  is 
made  to  the  contrary,  the  natural  descendant  becomes 
the  legal  heir.  Such  also  is  the  divine  economy  with 
regard  to  man.  The  appointment  of  Adam  as  our  federal 
head  was  not  altogether  arbitrary,  as  it  would  have  been, 
had  he  been  appointed  the  federal  head  of  angels — but  it 
was  according  to  the  fitness  of  things.  Hence,  our  na- 
tural relation  is  made  use  of  as  the  medium  of  bringing 
about  those  results  which  have  their  origin  in  om:  federal 
relation.  Original  sin  flows  to  us  through  the  channel  of 
natural  descent — and  various  evils  which  now  flow  from 
parent  to  child,  descend  in  the  same  way: — but  their 
foundation  must  be  traced  back  to  the  covenant  made 
with  our  first  father,  as  the  representative  of  his  posterity ; 
the  guilt  of  whose  first  sin  being  imputed  to  us,  a  corrupt 
and  depraved  nature  and  other  penal  evils  follow  as  the 
consequence.  Is  any  one  disposed  to  say,  I  never  gave 
my  consent  to  that  covenant,  and  therefore  it  is  unjust 
to  punish  me  for  its  violation  ?  We  ask  in  return,  whether 
the  individual  whose  case  has  been  supposed,  gave  his 
consent  that  his  ancestor  should  leave  the  estate  which 
he  has  inherited  from  him,  encumbered  with  debt.  And 
yet,  no  sane  man  would  ever  think  of  calling  in  question 
the  propriety  of  his  being  held  responsible.  If,  however, 
he  had  no  legal  connection  with  that  ancestor,  his  natural 
relation  would  not  be  suflicient  to  bind  him.  He  is  his 
heir,  not  merely  because  he  has  descended  from  him,  but 


OLD    AND    NEW    THEOLOGY.  SI 

because  the  law  of  the  land  has  made  him  such.  The 
latter  and  not  the  former,  imposes  upon  him  the  liabilities 
which  his  ancestor  incurred ;  and  though  he  never  gave 
his  consent,  he  regards  it  as  just  and  right. 


CHAPTER  V. 

THE  SUFFERINGS  OF  CHRIST  AND  OUR  JUSTIFICATION  THROUGH  HIM. 

The  nature  and  design  of  Christ's  sufferings  are  gen- 
erally described  by  theological  writers  of  the  present 
day,  under  the  name  of  Atonement — a  term  not  found  in 
our  standards,  and  but  once  in  the  English  version  of  the 
New  Testament.  For  a  considerable  time  after  the  Re- 
formation, the  mediatorial  work  of  Christ  was  commonly 
expressed  by  the  words,  reconciliation^  redemption,  and 
satisfaction,  which  are  the  terms  employed  in  our  Con- 
fession of  Faith.  This  accounts  for  the  fact  that  the 
word  atonement  does  not  occur  in  that  volume.  The 
mere  use  of  a  term  is  of  little  consequence,  provided  the 
true  doctrine  is  retained.  But  many  have  not  only  laid 
aside  the  ancient  phraseology,  but  with  it,  all  that  is  valu- 
able in  the  atonement  itself.  Instead  of  allowing  it  to  be 
any  proper  satisfaction  to  divine  justice,  by  which  a 
righteous  and  holy  God  is  propitiated,  some  affirm  that 
it  was  designed  merely  to  make  an  impression  on  intelli- 
gent beings  of  the  righteousness  of  God,  thus  opening 
the  way  for  pardon ;  and  others,  that  it  was  intended 
only  to  produce  a  change  in  the  sinner  himself,  by  the 
influence  which  th^  scenes  of  Calvary  are  calculated  to 


82  OLD    AND    NEW    THEOLOGY. 

exert  on  liis  mind.     The  latter  is  the  Socinian  view,  and 
the  second  that  of  the  New-school. 

It  is  proper  to  remark  that  the  view  first  alluded  to, 
includes  the  other  two.  While  it  regards  the  atonement 
as  primarily  intended  to  satisfy  the  justice  of  God,  by 
answering  the  demands,  and  suffering  the  penalty  of  his 
law,  it  was  designed  and  adapted  to  make  a  strong  im- 
pression both  upon  the  universe  and  upon  the  sinner  him- 
self. But  though  the  first  view  includes  the  others  as  the 
greater  does  the  less,  these  do  not  include  the  first,  but 
reject  it.  By  making  the  atonement  consist  wholly  in  the 
second  or  third  view,  there  is  involved  a  denial  that  Christ 
endured  the  penalty  of  the  law,  or  assumed  any  legal 
responsibility  in  our  behalf,  or  made  any  satisfaction, 
strictly  speaking,  to  the  justice  of  God — thus  giving  up 
what  has  been  regarded  by  most,  if  not  all  evangelical 
churches  since  the  Reformation,  as  essential  to  the  atone- 
ment. 

We  wish  to  observe  further,  by  way  of  explanation, 
that  by  Christ's  enduring  the  penalty  of  the  law,  is  not 
meant  that  he  endured  literally  the  same  suffering  either 
in  kind  or  duration  which  would  have  been  inflicted  upon 
the  sinner,  if  a  Saviour  had  not  been  provided.  In  a 
penalty,  some  things  are  essential — others  incidental. 
It  was  essential  to  the  penalty,  that  Christ  should  suffer 
a  violent  and  ignominious  death — but  whether  he  should 
die  by  decapitation  or  by  crucifixion,  was  incidental.  It 
was  essential  that  he  should  suffer  for  our  sins — but  how 
long  his  sufferings  should  continue,  was  incidental.  If 
inflicted  upon  us,  they  must  necessarily  be  eternal  — 
because  sin  is  an  infinite  evil,  and  finite  beings  cannot 
endure  the  punishment  which  is  due  to  it,  except  by  an 


OLD    AND    NEW    THEOLOGY.  83 

eternal  duration.  But  from  the  infinite  dignity  of  Christ's 
character,  the  penal  demands  of  the  law  could  be  fully 
answered  by  his  suffering  ever  so  short  a  time.  A  similar 
remark  may  be  made  concerning  the  remorse  of  con- 
science which  forms  a  part  of  the  torments  of  the  wicked. 
The  imputation  of  our  sins  to  Christ  does  not  involve  a 
transfer  of  moral  character,  but  only  of  legal  responsi- 
bility. In  being  "made  sin  for  us,"  Christ  did  not  be- 
come personally  a  sinner — but  "was  holy,  and  harmless, 
and  undefiled."  Of  course  he  could  have  no  remorse  of 
conscience,  such  as  a  convicted  sinner  suffers  in  view  of 
his  guilt.  But  this  is  merely  incidental,  and  depends 
upon  circumstances.  Some  sinners  never  appear  to  feel 
remorse  at  all — and  no  sinner,  probably,  feels  it  at  all  times. 
What  is  intended  then  by  Christ's  suffering  the  penalty 
of  the  law  as  our  substitute  is,  that  in  law  he  assumed 
our  place,  and  endured  all  that  was  essential  in  its  penal 
demands — whereby  he  fully  satisfied  divine  justice ;  and 
those  who  are  united  to  him  by  faith,  are,  as  an  act  of 
justice  to  Christ,  but  of  free  unbounded  mercy  to  theniy 
"redeemed  from  the  curse  of  the  law,"  he  "being  made 
a  curse  for  them."  This  doctrine,  the  Old  Theology 
maintains — the  New  denies. 

The  following  quotations  will  exemplify  the  New-school 
views.  Dr.  Beman,*  in  his  "  Sermons  on  the  Doctrine 
of  the  Atonement,"  observes  (p.  34):  "The  law  can 
have  no  penal  demand  except  against  the  offender.  With 
a  substitute  it  has  no  concern ;  and  though  a  thousand 
substitutes  should  die,  the  law,  in  ilself  considered,  and 

*  Dr.  Beman  has  not,  we  believe,  published  his  sentiments  on 
the  other  points  embraced  in  the  New  Theology,  and  therefore  we 
cannot  state  with  certainty  what  they  are. 


84  OLDANDNEWTHEOLOGY. 

left  to  its  own  natural  operation,  would  have  the  same 
demand    upon    the    transgressor   which   it   always   had. 
This  claim  can  never  be  invalidated.     This  penal  demand 
can  never   be  extinguished."     Speaking  of   those   who 
entertain  opposite  views,  he  says  (p.  45),  "  They  contend 
that  the  real  penalty  of  the  law  was  inflicted  on  Christ ; 
and  at  the  same  time  acknowledge  that  the  sufferings  of 
Christ  were  not  the  same,  either  in  nature  or  degree,  as 
those  sufferings  which  were  threatened  against  the  trans- 
gressor.    The  words  of  our  text  [Gal.  iii.  13,]  are  con- 
sidered by  many  as  furnishing  unequivocal  testimony  to 
the  fact,  that  Christ  endured  the  penalty  of  the  law  in 
the  room  of  his  people.     '  Christ  hath  redeemed  us  from 
the  curse  of  the  law,  being  made  a  curse  for  us.*^     But 
it  is,  in  no  shape,  asserted  here,  that  Christ  suffered  the 
penalty  of  the  law.     The  apostle  tells  us  in  what  sense 
he  was   "  made  a  curse  for  us.'     '  Cursed  is  every  one 
that  hangeth  on  a  tree.'     Believers  are  saved  from  the 
curse  or  penalty  of  the  law  by  the  consideration,  that 
Christ  was  'made  a  curse'  for  them  in  another  and  a 
very  different  sense.     He  was  '  made  a  curse'  inasmuch 
as  he  suffered,  in  order  to  open  the  door  of  hope  to  man, 
the  pains  and  ignominy  of  crucifixion.     He  hung  upon  a 
tree.    He  died  as  a  malefactor.     He  died  as  one  accursed." 
In  a  note  on  the  next  page,  with  reference  to  some  remarks 
in  a  sermon  by  Dr.  Dana,  of  Londonderry,  he  observes : 
"But  why  is  it  necessary  to  support  the  position,  that 
the  curse  of  the  law  was  inflicted  on  Christ  ?     If  it  should 
be  said,  the  divine  veracity  was  pledged  to  execute  the 
law — we  reply  that  the  divine  veracity  can  find  no  sup- 
port in  that  kind  of  infliction  of  the  curse  which  is  here 
supposed.     A  substantial  execution  of  the  law — an  en- 


OLD    AND    NEW    THEOLOGY.  85 

durance  of  the  penalty  so  far  as  the  nature  of  the  case 
admitted  or  required — an  infliction  of  suffering,  not  upon 
the  transgressor,  but  upon  a  surety,  when  the  law  had 
not  made  the  most  distant  allusion  to  a  surety,  certainly 
has  much  more  the  appearance  of  evasion  than  execution 
of  the  law."  He  says  (p.  51),  "As  to  imputation,  we  do 
deny  that  the  sins  of  men,  or  of  any  part  of  our  race, 
were  so  transferred  to  Christ,  that  they  became  his  sins, 
or  were  so  reckoned  to  him,  that  he  sustained  their  legal 
responsibilities."  *  Again  (p.  68),  "  There  is  nothing  in 
the  character  of  Christ's  sufferings  which  can  affect  or 
modify  the  penalty  of  the  law.  These  sufferings  were 
not  legal.  They  constituted  no  part  of  that  curse  which 
was  threatened  against  the  transgressor." 

What  then,  according  to  him,  was  the  nature  of  Christ's 
sufferings  ?  He  says  (pp.  35,  36),  "  He  suffered  and 
died,  the  just  for  the  unjust ;"  and  those  sufferings  which 
he  endured  as  a  holy  being,  were  intended,  in  the  case 
of  all  those  who  are  finally  saved,  as  a  substitute  for  the 
infliction  of  the  penalty  of  the  law.  We  say  a  substitute 
for  the  infliction  of  the  penalty  ;  for  the  penalty  itself, 
if  it  be  executed  at  all,  must  fall  upon  the  sinner,  and 
upon  no  one  else."  Again  (pp.  50,  51),  "The  atone- 
ment was  a  substitute  for  the  infliction  of  the  penalty  of 
the  law — or  the  sufferings  of  Christ  were  a  substitute  for 
the  punishment  of  sinners This*is  vicarious  suf- 
fering. It  is  the  suffering  of  Christ  in  the  place  of  the 
endless  suffering  of  the  sinner."  Once  more  (pp.  64, 
Qb)\  "  The  penalty  of  the  law,  strictly  speaking,  was  not 

*  The  Old  Theology  does  not  maintain  that  our  sins  "  became  his 
gins" — but  only  that  he  sustained  our  legal  responsibilities. 

8 


86  OLD    AND    NEW    THEOLOGY. 

inflicted  at  all ;  for  this  penalty,  in  which  was  [were] 
embodied  the  principles  of  distributive  justice,  required 
the  death  of  the  sinner,  and  did  not  require  the  death  of 
Christ.  As  a  substitute  for  the  infliction  of  this  penalty, 
God  did  accept  of  the  sufierings  of  his  Son." 

Was  there  then  no  satisfaction  made  to  divine  justice  ? 
Says  Dr.  Beman  (p.  65),  "  The  law,  or  justice,  that  is, 
distributive  justice,  as  expressed  in  the  law,  has  received 
no  satisfaction  at  all.  The  whole  legal  system  has  been 
suspended,  at  least  for  the  present,  in  order  to  make  way 
for  the  operation  of  one  of  a  difl"erent  character.  In 
introducing  this  system  of  mercy,  which  involves  a  sus- 
pension of  the  penal  curse,  God  has  required  a  satisfac- 
tion to  the  principles  of  general  or  public  justice — a  satis- 
faction which  will  efiectually  secure  all  the  good  to  the 
universe  which  is  intended  to  be  accomplished  by  the 
penalty  of  the  law  when  inflicted,  and,  at  the  same  time, 
prevent  all  that  practical  mischief  which  would  result 
from  arresting  the  hand  of  punitive  justice  without  the 
intervention  of  an  atonement."  But  what  does  he  mean 
by  '^  general  or  public  justice  P''  He  says  (pp.  63,  64), 
"  It  has  no  direct  reference  to  law,  but  embraces  those 
principles  of  virtue  or  benevolence  by  which  we  are  bound 
to  govern  our  conduct ;  and  by  which  God  himself  governs 
the  universe.  It  is  in  this  sense  that  the  terms  'just' 
and  'righteousness'  occur  in  our  text.  [Bom.  iii.  26.] 
....  This  atonement  was  required,  that  God  might  be 
'just,'  or  righteous,  that  is,  that  he  might  do  the  thing 
which  was  fit  and  proper,  and  best  and  most  expedient  to 
be  done ;  and  at  the  same  time  be  at  perfect  liberty  to 
justify  him  which  believeth  in  Jesus." 

Let  us  now  inquire,  is  this  what  is  meant  in  the  Con- 


OLD    AND    NEW    THEOLOGY.  8T 

fesslon  of  Faith,  where  it  reads,  "  The  Lord  Jesus  Christ, 
by  his  perfect  obedience  and  sacrifice  of  himself,  which 
he  through  the  Eternal  Spirit  once  offered  up  unto  God, 
hath  fully  satisfied  the  justice  of  his  Father  T'  We  think 
not.  No  intimation  of  this  kind  is  given.  The  framers 
of  our  standards  do  not  appear  to  have  learned  that  God 
governs  the  universe  by  one  kind  of  justice,  viz.  by  the 
"principles  of  virtue  or  benevolence;"  and  punishes  sin- 
ners for  rebelling  against  his  government,  by  another  and 
a  different  kind,  viz.  the  justice  which  is  "  expressed  in 
the  law." 

Are  these  two  kinds  of  justice  in  conflict  with  each 
other  ?  or  is  not  God's  justice  "  as  expressed  in  the  law," 
the  same  kind  of  justice  by  which  he  "  governs  the  uni- 
verse?" Was  not  the  law  founded  on  the  "principles 
of  virtue  or  benevolence  ?"  Why  then  could  not  Jehovah 
exhibit  those  principles,  by  the  obedience  and  sacrifice 
of  Christ  in  our  behalf,  in  conformity  to  the  laiv  ?  "But 
when .  the  fulness  of  the  time  was  come,  God  sent  forth 
his  Son,  made  of  a  woman,  made  under  the  law,  to  redeem 
them  that  were  under  the  law,  that  we  might  receive  the 
adoption  of  sons."  Gal.  iv.  4,  5.  Does  this  mean  that 
those  "under  the  law,"  were  exposed  to  the  retribution 
of  one  kind  of  justice,  and  that  Christ,  who  was  "  made 
under  the  law,  to  redeem  them,"  rendered  satisfaction  to 
another  and  a  different  kind — to  a  species  of  justice  un- 
known to  the  law,  and  contrary  to  it  ?  Does  not  the  law 
embody  those  things  which  "  are  fit  and  proper,  and  best 
and  most  expedient  to  be  done?"  If  so,  why  was  it 
necessary  to  "suspend"  it,  in  order  to  introduce  a  code 
of  justice,  which  "has  no  direct  reference  to  law,"  but 
belongs  to  a  system  possessing  "  a  different  character  ?" 


88  OLD    AND    NEW    THEOLOGY. 

These  positions,  it  appears  to  us,  involve  the  sentiment, 
that  the  divine  government  and  law,  as  the  former  is  now 
administered,  are  not  in  harmony  with  each  other — that 
the  government  of  God  could  not  be  administered  accord- 
ing to  the  "principles  of  virtue  or  benevolence,"  in  a 
manner  "  fit  and  proper,  and  best  and  most  expedient  to 
be  done" — without  a  suspension  of  "  the  whole  legal  sys- 
tem ;"  or,  which  is  the  same  thing,  a  disregard  of  his  law. 
And  if  the  atonement  proceeded  on  this  principle,  we  can- 
not perceive  why  it  might  not  have  been  dispensed  with 
altogether — for  if  "  the  penalty  of  the  law  was  not  in- 
flicted at  all,"  but  a  system  was  introduced  "which  in- 
volves a  suspension  of  the  legal  curse,"  why  might  not 
God  as  moral  Governor,  in  the  exercise  of  that  "  virtue 
or  benevolence,  by  which  he  governs  the  universe,"  and 
in  pursuance  of  what  "was  fit  and  proper,  and  best  and 
most  expedient  to  be  done,"  have  suspended  "  the  whole 
legal  system,"  and  extended  pardon  to  sinners  without  an 
atonement  ? 

Dr.  Beman  assigns  three  reasons  why  the  atonement 
was  necessary ;  all  of  which  lose  their  force  on  the  sup- 
position that  Christ  did  not  suffer  the  penalty  of  the  law. 
He  says,  "  the  atonement  was  necessary  as  an  expression 
of  God's  regard  for  the  moral  law."  But  how  could  it 
express  his  regard  for  the  law,  provided  the  law  has  re- 
ceived no  satisfaction  at  all ;  "  but  the  whole  legal  system 
was  suspended  in  order  to  make  way  for  the  operation  of 
one,"  which  "has  no  direct  reference  to  law?"  Again, 
he  says,  "  the  atonement  was  necessary  in  order  to  evince 
the  divine  determination  to  punish  sin,  or  to  execute  the 
penalty  of  the  law."  On  the  principle  that  Christ  acted 
as  our  surety,  and  sustained  in  our  stead  those  penal  evils 


OLD    AND    NEW    THEOLOGY.  89 

■wMch  were  essential  to  tlie  execution  of  the  threatening 
contained  in  the  law,  we  can  perceive  how  "  the  divine 
determination  to  punish  sin"  was  evinced.  Not  so,  how- 
ever, if  we  "  den  J  that  the  sins  of  men  were  so  reckoned 
to  Christ,  that  he  sustained  their  legal  responsibilities ;" 
and  view  the  atonement  as  "  a  system  of  mercy,"  in  which 
the  "  sufferings  of  Christ  were  not  legal,  and  constituted 
no  part  of  that  curse  which  was  threatened  against  the 
transgressor."  This  makes  the  atonement  an.  entire  de- 
parture  from  law,  and  could  therefore  never  be  adduced 
to  show  that  God  has  determined  to  execute  its  penalty. 

The  other  reason  which  he  assigns  for  the  necessity  of 
the  atonement,  is  liable,  on  his  principles,  to  the  same 
objection.  ''  The  necessity  of  the  atonement,  (says  he), 
will  further  appear,  if  we  contemplate  the  relations  of  this 

doctrine  with  the  rational  universe." "We  may 

naturally  suppose,  that  it  was  the  intention  of  God,  in 
saving  sinners,  to  make  a  grand  impression  upon  the  uni- 
verse." ....  "What  effect  would  the  salvation  of  sinners 
without  an  atonement,  probably  have  upon  the  angels  of 
heaven  ?"...."  This  example  has  taught  them  to  revere 
the  law,  and  to  expect  the  infliction  of  the  penalty  upon 

every  transgressor." "  Every  angel  feels  the 

impression  which  this  public  act  is  calculated  to  make ; 
and  while  he  dreads,  with  a  new  sensation,  the  penalty, 
he  clings  more  closely  to  the  precept  of  the  law.  But 
suppose  the  provisions  of  this  law  were  entirely  set  aside, 
in  our  world,  as  would  be  the  case  if  sinful  men  were  to 
be  saved  without  an  atonement,  and,  in  the  estimaiion  of 
fallen  angels,  you  create  war  between  God  and  his  own 
eternal  law." 

Let  us  now  ask,  are  not  "  the  provisions  of  the  law 
8* 


90  OLD    AND    NEW    THEOLOGY^ 

entirely  set  aside  in  our  world,"  according  to  lils  sclieme  ? 
Not,  it  is  true,  "  by  saving  sinful  men  without  an  atone- 
ment;" but  by  saving  them  through  that  hind  of  atone- 
ment, which  ''  has  no  direct  reference  to  law,"  and  ''in- 
volves a  suspension  of  its  legal  curse."  If  the  law  "has 
no  concern  with  a  substitute  ;"  and  if  Christ's  "  sufferings 
constituted  no  part  of  that  curse,  which  was  threatened 
against  the  transgressor,"  how  can  a  view  of  his  sufferings 
teach  the  angels  *'  to  revere  the  law,  and  to  expect  the 
infliction  of  the  penalty  upon  every  transgressor !" 
Would  it  not,  on  the  contrary,  produce  the  impression 
that  the  law  was  given  up,  and  its  "  provisions  entirely 
set  aside  in  our  world?"  and  if  this  would  be  the  im- 
pression upon  holy  angels,  it  would  be  the  same  upon 
devils.  To  use  his  own  language,  "in  the  estimation  of 
fallen  angels,  you  create  war  between  God  and  his  own 
eternal  law."  On  the  principle  that  Christ  suffered  the 
penalty  of  the  law  as  our  substitute,  all  is  plain — but  if 
not,  neither  man  nor  angel  can  tell  satisfactorily,  how 
"  God  can  he  just  while  he  justifies  him  that  believeth;" 
or  why,  if  he  can  be  just  in  bestowing  pardon  with  an 
atonement,  he  might  not  be  just  in  bestowing  it  witJiout 
any. 

Another  work  on  the  atonement,  said  to  have  been 
founded  on  Dr.  Beman's  Sermons,  has  been  published 
in  England,  by  Mr.  Jenkyn,  and  republished  in  this 
country,  with  an  introductory  recommendation  by  Dr. 
Carroll.  On  these  two  accounts  it  may  be  properly 
referred   to   as   a  specimen    of   the    new  views.*      Mr. 

*  Concerning  Dr.  Beman's  Discourses,  Mr,  Jenkyn  says : — "  This 
little  -work  is  a  rich  nursery  of  what  Lord  Bacon  calls  '  the  seeds 
of  things.'     It  abounds  in  living  theological  principles,  each  of 


OLD    AND    NEW    THEOLOGY.  91 

Jenkyn  introduces  seven  arguments  to  prove  that  Christ 
did  not  suffer  the  penalty  of  the  law — but  that  his  suffer- 
ings were  a  substitute  for  the  penalty.  According  to 
him,  the  very  idea  of  an  atonement  involves  a  suspension 
of  the  penalty.  "An  atonement,  (says  he),  is  a  measure 
or  an  expedient,  that  is  a  satisfaction  for  the  suspension 
of  the  threatened  penalty.  A  suspension  or  a  non-exe- 
cution of  the  literal  threatening  is  always  implied  in  an 
atonement."  (p.  25.)  "If  a  man  transgress  a  law,  he 
must,  in  a  just  and  firm  government,  be  punished.  Why? 
Lest  others  have  a  bad  opinion  of  the  law  and  transgress 
it  too.  But  suppose  that  this  end  of  the  law  be  secured 
without  punishing  the  transgressor  ;  suppose  that  a  mea- 
sure shall  be  devised  by  the  governor,  which  shall  save 
the  criminal,  and  yet  keep  men  from  having  a  bad  opinion 
of  the  law.  Why,  in  such  case,  all  would  approve  of  it, 
both  on  the  score  of  justice  and  on  the  score  of  benevo- 
lence. For  public  justice  only  requires  that  men  should 
be  kept  from  having  such  a  bad  opinion  of  the  law  as  to 
break  it.  If  this  can  be  done  without  inflicting  what,  in 
distributive  justice,  is  due  to  the  criminal,  public  justice 
is  satisfied,  because  its  ends  are  fully  answered.  The 
death  of  Christ  secures  this  end."  (pp.  140,  141.)  Again : 
"  The  truth  of  any  proposition  or  declaration  consists 

which,  if  duly  cultivated  and  reared,  \\'ouId  unfold  great  and  ample 
truths,  illustrative  of  this  great  doctrine.''  Concerning  Jenkyn's 
work,  Dr.  Carrell  uses  similar  language : — "As  a  treatise,  (says  he), 
on  the  grand  relations  of  the  atonement,  it  is  a  book  vehich  may  be 
emphatically  said  to  contain  'the  seeds  of  things' — the  elements  of 
mightier  and  nobler  combinations  of  thought  respecting  the  sacri- 
fice of  Christ,  than  any  modern  production." "We  believe 

that  its  influence  on  the  opinions  of  theological  students  and  min- 
isters will  be  great  and  salutary,  beyond  computation." 


92  OLD    AND    NEW    THEOLOGY.' 

more  in  the  spirit  than  in  the  letter  of  it.  Truth  in  a 
promise  and  truth  in  a  threatening^  are  diiferent,  especi- 
ally in  measures  of  government.  Truth  in  a  promise 
obliges  the  promiser  to  perform  his  word,  or  else  to  be 
regarded  as  unfaithful  and  false.  But  truth  in  a  threat- 
ening does  not,  in  the  administration  of  discipline  or  gov- 
ernment, actually  oblige  to  literal  execution  ;  it  only 
makes  the  punishment  to  be  due  and  admissible.  A 
threatened  penalty  does  not  deprive  the  lawgiver  of  his 
sovereign  and  supra-legal  power  to  dispense  with  it,  if  he 

can  secure  the  ends  of  it  by  any  other  measure." 

*'  This  supra-legal  prerogative  of  suspending  punishment, 
God  has  exercised  in  many  instances,  as  in  the  sparing 
of  Nineveh,  and  I  believe  in  the  sparing  of  our  first  pa- 
rents. The  identical  penalty  of  the  Eden  constitution 
"was  not  literally  executed  either  on  man  or  on  Christ. 
It  was  not  executed  on  onan,  for  then  there  would  have 
been  no  human  race.  The  first  pair  would  have  been 
destroyed,  and  mankind  would  never  have  come  into  being. 
It  was  not  executed  on  Christ.  He  did  no  sin ;  he  vio- 
lated no  constitution,  and  yet  he  died.  Surely  no  law  or 
constitution  under  which  he  was,  could  legally  visit  him 
with  a  penalty.  If  it  be  said  that  he  suffered  it  for 
others,  let  it  be  remembered  that  immutable  verity  as 
much  requires  that  the  penalty  should  be  inflicted  on  the 
literal  sinner  onl^,  as  that  it  should  be  inflicted  at  all." 
(pp.  64,  65.) 

In  addition  to  the  remarks  already  made  on  Dr.  Be- 
man's  views,  which  will  answer  equally  well  for  those  of 
Mr.  Jenkyn,  we  wish  to  notice  a  sentiment  not  before 
alluded  to.  It  is  contained  in  the  last  paragraph  quoted 
from  Jenkyn,  and  is  as  follows,  viz :  that  though  God  is 


OLD    AND    NEW    THEOLOGY.  93 

bound  to  fulfil  his  promises,  he  is  not  bound  to  execute 
his  threatenings.  This  distinction  is  resorted  to  for  the 
purpose  of  avoiding  the  difficulty,  that  if  God  does  not 
inflict  the  penalty  of  the  law  either  on  the  sinner  or  upon 
Christ  as  his  substitute,  his  veracity  is  thereby  impeached. 
"VVe  admit  that  the  divine  veracity  does  not  require  the 
execution  of  a  coyiditional  threatening,  as  in  the  case  of 
Nineveh ;  but  no  one  will  pretend  that  God's  law  threat- 
ened punishment  for  disobedience  conditionally.  The 
moment  the  law  was  violated,  the  transgressor  fell  under 
the  curse.  And  he  must  either  endure  it  eternally,  or  be 
released  by  having  satisfaction  paid  to  divine  justice  in 
gome  other  way.  "  Cursed  is  every  one  that  continueth 
not  in  all  things  written  in  the  book  of  the  law,  to  do 
them."  "  In  the  day  thou  eatest  thereof,  thou  shalt  surely 
die."  Accordingly,  as  soon  as  Adam  transgressed,  he 
began  to  feel  the  curse.  He  lost  God's  image  and  favour 
— he  became  spiritually  dead — and  he  would  have  suf- 
fered temporal  and  eternal  death,  had  they  not  been 
averted  by  the  interposition  of  a  substitute.*  The  pe- 
nalty of  the  law  must  be  substantially  executed. 

"Die  he  or  justice  must,  unless  for  him, 
Some  other  able  and  as  willing,  pay 
The  rigid  satisfaction — death  for  death." 

*  It  is  sometimes  said  that  God  did  not  execute  his  threatening 
upon  Adam,  because  he  did  not  die  a  temporal  death  that  very  day. 
But  the  threatening  began  to  be  inflicted  that  very  day — and  this 
was  all  which  was  intended  by  it.  From  the  nature  of  the  case, 
eternal  death  cannot  be  inflicted  in  a  day,  because  it  requires  an 
endless  duration.  Even  in  the  case  of  the  wicked  in  hell — it  has 
only  begun  to  be  inflicted— and  yet  who  doubts  that  they  are  suf- 
fering the  penalty  of  the  law  ? 


94  OLDANDNEWTHEOLOGT. 

If  God  Is  not  bound  to  fulfil  his  threatenings,  how  can 
it  be  proved  that  the  punishment  of  the  wicked  will  be 
eternal  ?  Though  it  is  distinctly  and  frequently  asserted 
in  the  Bible  that  such  will  be  the  doom  of  the  finally  im- 
penitent, yet  if  God's  veracity  does  not  require  the  exe- 
cution of  this  threatening,  there  is  no  certainty  that  it 
will  be  inflicted :  nay,  there  is  much  reason  to  believe  the 
contrary  ;  because,  if  there  is  nothing  in  God's  character 
or  law,  which  requires  him  to  punish  sin,  we  may  be  sure, 
that  his  infinite  goodness  w^Ill  lead  him  to  release  the  sin- 
ner from  condemnation  ;  and  thus,  atonement  or  no  atone- 
ment, all  mankind  will  be  saved.  But  if  the  nature  of 
God  requires  him  to  punish  sin,  and  if  when  he  has 
threatened  to  punish  it,  his  veracity  requires  him  to  exe- 
cute that  threatening ;  then  either  Christ  endured  what 
was  essential  in  the  penalty  of  the  law,  as  our  substitute, 
or  our  union  to  him  by  faith  cannot  shelter  us  from  its 
penal  demands.  Its  threatenings  still  lie  against  us,  and 
must  ere  long  be  inflicted.  It  is  not  true,  therefore,  that 
"  there  is  no  condemnation  to  them  that  are  in  Christ 
Jesus."  He  is  not  "a  hiding-place  from  the  wind;  a 
covert  from  the  tempest." 

Mr.  Barnes,  in  his  sermon  on  the  Way  of  Salvation, 
and  in  his  Notes  on  the  Romans,  gives  substantially  the 
same  view  of  the  atonement  with  Dr.  Beman  and  ]\Ir. 
Jenkyn.  But  in  another  production  of  his,  viz. :  an  In- 
troductory Essay  to  Butler's  Analogy,  which  was  first 
published  in  the  Qhristian  Spectator,  and  afterwards  pre- 
fixed to  a  new  edition  of  the  Analogy,  he  presents  the 
subject  in  a  manner  still  more  exceptionable.  If  we  mis- 
take not,  it  is  such  a  view  as  any  Unitarian  in  the  United 
States  would  subscribe  to.     His  language  is  as  follows : 


OLD    AND    NEW    THEOLOGY.  95 

"  Now,  in  recurring  to  the  analogy  of  nature,  we  have 
only  to  ask,  whether  calamities  which  are  hastening  to 
fall  on  us,  are  ever  put  back  by  the  intervention  of  an- 
other. Are  there  any  cases  in  which  either  our  own  crimes 
or  the  manifest  judgments  of  God,  are  bringing  ruin  upon 
us,  where  that  ruin  is  turned  aside  by  the  interposition 
of  others  ?  Now  we  at  once  cast  our  eyes  backward  to 
all  the  helpless  and  dangerous  periods  of  our  being.  Did 
God  come  forth  directly^  and  protect  us  in  the  defenceless 
period  of  infancy  ?  Who  watched  over  the  sleep  of  the 
cradle,  and  guarded  us  in  sickness  and  helplessness  ?  It 
was  the  tenderness  of  a  mother  bending  over  our  slum- 
bering childhood,  foregoing  sleep,  and  rest,  and  ease,  and 
hailing  toil  and  care  that  we  might  be  defended.  Why 
then  is  it  strange,  that  when  God  thus  ushers  us  into  ex- 
istence through  the  pain  and  toil  of  another,  he  should 
convey  the  blessings  of  a  higher  existence  by  the  groans 
and  pangs  of  a  higher  Mediator  ?  God  gives  us  knowledge. 
But  does  he  come  forth  to  teach  us  by  inspiration,  or 
guide  us  by  his  own  hand  to  the  fountains  of  wisdom  ? 
It  is  by  years  of  patient  toil  in  others  that  we  possess  the 
elements  of  science,  the  principles  of  morals,  the  endow- 
ments of  religion.  He  gives  us  food  and  raiment.  Is 
the  Great  Parent  of  benevolence  seen  clothing  us  by  his 
own  hand,  or  ministering  directly  to  our  wants  ?  Who 
makes  provision  for  the  sons  and  daughters  of  feebleness, 
gaiety,  or  idleness  ?  Who  but  the  care-worn  and  anxious 
father  and  mother,  who  toil  that  their  offspring  may  re- 
ceive these  benefits  from  their  hands  ?  Why  then  may 
not  the  garments  of  salvation  and  the  manna  of  life  come 
through  a  higher  Mediator,  and  be  the  fruit  of  severer 
toil  and  sufferings  ?     Heaven's  highest,  richest  benefits  are 


96  OLD    AND    NEW    THEOLOGY. 

thus  conveyed  to  the  race  through  thousands  of  hands 
acting  as  mediums  between  man  and  God.  It  is  thus 
through  the  instrumentality  of  others,  that  the  great 
Giver  of  life  breathes  health  into  our  bodies,  and  vigour 
into  our  frames.  And  why  should  he  not  reach  also  the 
sick  and  weary  mind — the  soul  languishing  under  a  long 
and  wretched  disease,  by  the  hand  of  a  Mediator  ?  Why 
should  he  not  kindle  the  glow  of  spiritual  health  on  the 
wan  cheek,  and  infuse  celestial  life  into  our  veins,  by  him 
who  is  the  great  Physician  of  our  souls  ?  The  very  earth, 
air,  waters,  are  all  channels  for  conveying  blessings  to  us 
from  God.  Why  then  should  the  infidel  stand  back,  and 
all  sinners  frown,  when  we  claim  the  same  thing  in  re- 
demption, and  affirm  that  in  this  great  concern,  '  there  is 
one  Mediator  between  God  and  men,  the  man  Christ 
Jesus,  who  gave  himself  a  ransom  for  all  V 

"  But  still  it  may  be  said,  that  this  is  not  an  atonement. 
We  admit  it.  We  maintain  only  that  it  vindicates  the 
main  principle  of  atonement,  and  shows  that  it  is  accord- 
ing to  a  general  law^  that  God  imparts  spiritual  blessings 
to  us  through  a  Mediator.  What,  we  ask,  is  the  precise 
objectionable  point  in  the  atonement,  if  it  be  not  that 
God  aids  us  in  our  sins  and  woes,  by  the  self-denial  and 
sufferings  of  another  ?  And  we  ask,  whether  there  is  any- 
thing so  peculiar  in  such  a  system,  as  to  make  it  intrinsi- 
cally absurd  and  incredible.  Now^  we  think  there  is  no- 
thing more  universal  and  indisputable  than  a  system  of 
nature  like  this.  God  has  made  the  whole  animal  world 
tributary  to  man.  And  it  is  by  the  toil  and  pain  of  crea- 
tion, that  our  wants  are  supplied,  our  appetites  gratified, 
our  bodies  sustained,  our  sickness  alleviated — that  is,  the 
impending  evils  of  labour,  famine,  or  disease,  are  put 


OLD    AND    NEW    THEOLOGY.  97 

away  by  these  substituted  toils  and  privations.  By  the 
blood  of  patriots  he  gives  us  the  blessings  of  liberty — 
that  is,  by  their  sufferings  in  our  defence  we  are  delivered 
from  the  miseries  of  rapine,  murder,  or  slavery,  which 
might  have  encompassed  our  dwellings.  The  toil  of  a 
father  is  the  price  by  Avhich  a  son  is  saved  from  igno- 
rance, depravity,  want,  or  death.  The  tears  of  a  mother, 
and  her  long  watchfulness,  save  from  the  perils  of  infancy, 
and  an  early  death.  Friend  aids  friend  by  toil ;  a  parent 
foregoes  rest  for  a  child ;  and  the  patriot  pours  out  his 
blood  on  the  altars  of  freedom,  that  others  may  enjoy  the 
blessings  of  liberty — that  is,  that  others  may  not  be 
doomed  to  slavery,  want,  and  death. 

"  Yet  still  it  may  be  said,  that  we  have  not  come,  in 
the  analogy,  to  the  precise  point  of  the  atonement,  in 
producing  reconciliation  with  God  by  the  sufferings  of 
another.  We  ask  then,  what  is  the  Scripture  account  of 
the  effect  of  the  atonement  in  producing  reconciliation  ? 
Man  is  justly  exposed  to  suffering.  He  is  guilty,  and  it 
is  the  righteous  purpose  of  God  that  the  guilty  should 
suffer.  God  is  so  opposed  to  him  that  he  will  inflict  suf- 
fering on  him,  unless  by  an  atonement  it  is  prevented. 
By  the  intervention  of  an  atonement,  therefore,  the 
Scriptures  affirm  that  such  sufferings  shall  be  averted. 
The  man  shall  be  saved  from  the  impending  calamity. 
Sufficient  for  all  the  purposes  of  justice  and  of  just  gov- 
ernment, has  fallen  on  the  substitute,  and  the  sinner  may 
be  pardoned  and  reconciled  to  God.  Now,  we  affirm  that 
in  every  instance  of  the  substituted  sufferings,  or  self- 
denial  of  the  parent,  the  patriot,  or  the  benefactor,  there 
occurs  a  state  of  things  so  analogous  to  this,  as  to  show 
that  it  is  in  strict  accordance  with  the  just  government 
9 


98  OLD    AND    NEW    THEOLOGY. 

of  God,  and  to  remove  all  the  objections  to  the  peculiarity 
of  the  atonement.  Over  a  helpless  babe  ushered  into  the 
world,  naked,  feeble,  speechless,  there  impend  hunger, 
cold,  sickness,  sudden  death  —  a  mother's  watchfulness 
averts  these  evils.  Over  a  nation  impend  revolutions, 
sword,  famine,  and  the  pestilence.  The  blood  of  the 
patriot  averts  these,  and  the  nation  smiles  in  peace. 
Look  at  a  single  instance  :  Xerxes  poured  his  millions  on 
the  shores  of  Greece.  The  vast  host  darkened  all  the 
plains,  and  stretched  towards  the  capital.  In  the  train 
there  followed  weeping,  blood,  conflagration,  and  the  loss 
of  liberty.  Leonidas,  almost  alone,  stood  in  his  path. 
He  fought.  Who  can  calculate  the  effects  of  the  valour 
and  blood  of  that  single  man  and  his  compatriots  in 
averting  calamities  from  Greece,  and  from  other  nations 
struggling  in  the  cause  of  freedom  ?  Who  can  tell  how 
much  of  rapine,  of  cruelty,  and  of  groans  and  tears  it 
turned  away  from  that  nation?" 

It  is  due  to  Mr.  Barnes  to  state,  that  he  observes  in 
the  words  immediately  following  the  above  extract,  "Now 
we  by  no  means  affirm  that  this  is  all  that  is  meant  by  an 
atonement,  as  revealed  by  Christianity."  Yet  in  his 
subsequent  remarks  he  does  not  advance  a  single  idea 
which  gives  a  higher  view  of  that  great  transaction,  than 
is  presented  above  :  and  in  the  passage  we  have  quoted, 
he  affirms  that  the  view  which  he  has  given,  "  vindicates 
the  main  principle  of  atonement."  If  his  illustrations 
vindicate  the  main  principle  of  atonement,  they  must 
convey  a  correct  idea  of  what  the  atonement  is.  But  if 
the  reader  is  left  to  obtain  his  knowledge  on  this  subject 
from  these  statements,  he  would  adopt  a  scheme  unworthy 
the  name  of  atonement.     Indeed,  Mr.  Barnes  admits, 


OLD    AND    NEW    THEOLOGY.  99 

wltli  reference  to  the  first  part  of  his  statement,  that  it 
is  not  an  atonement ;  though  at  the  same  time  he  asserts 
that  the  "main  principle  of  atonement"  is  vindicated  by 
the  view  which  he  had  presented.  But  if  the  "  main 
principle'  of  atonement  is  exhibited  in  any  part  of  the 
above  extract,  or  in  the  whole  taken  together,  we  can  see 
no  reason  for  the  necessity  of  a  divine  Mediator ;  and 
should  be  disposed  seriously  to  inquire  whether  Socinian- 
ism  is  not  all  the  Christianity  that  we  need.* 

We  shall  give  but  one  more  specimen  of  the  New 
Theology  on  this  subject.  It  will  be  taken  from  a  ser- 
mon of  Dr.  Murdock,  preached  before  the  students  at 
Andover  in  1823.  He  was  at  that  time  a  professor  in 
the  Andover  Theological  Seminary. 

"In  this  text  [Rom.  iii.  25,  26,]  Paul  declares  ex- 
plicitly, what  was  the  immediate  object  of  Christ's  atoning 
sacrifice ;  that  is,  what  efiect  it  had  in  the  economy  of 

*  The  Christian  Examiner,  a  Unitarian  periodical  published  at 
Boston,  contains  a  review  of  Mr.  Barnes's  Notes  on  the  Romans, 
in  which  the  writer  observes,  "  On  the  atonement,  our  author's 
views  are  far  in  advance  of  those  of  the  church  to  which  he  belongs. 
Though  he  maintains  that  Christ  was  in  some  sense  a  substitute  in 
the  place  of  sinners,  he  denies  a  strictly  and  fully  vicarious  atone- 
ment, and  makes  the  Saviour's  death  important  chiefly  as  an  illus- 
tration of  the  inherent  and  essential  connection  between  sin  and 
suffering."  With  regard  to  the  book,  the  reviewer  says,  "  While, 
for  the  most  part,  we  would  advise  no  additions,  were  the  work  re- 
edited  under  Unitarian  supervision,  we  should  note  exceedingly  few 
omissions.  Indeed,  on  many  of  the  standard  and  Trinitarian  proof- 
texts,  Mr.  Barnes  has  candidly  indicated  the  inadequacy  of  the  text 
to  prove  the  doctrine."  .  .  .  .  "  Sometimes  Mr.  Barnes  does  not  so 
much  as  suggest  a  Trinitarian  idea  in  commenting  on  texts  which 
have  been  deemed  decidedly  and  irresistibly  Trinitarian  in  their 
bearing." 


100  OLD    AND    NEW    THEOLOGY. 

redemption,  or  how  it  laid  a  proper  foundation  for  the 
pardon  and  the  salvation  of  sinful  men.  It  was  the  im- 
mediate object  of  this  sacrifice  to  declare  the  righteous- 
ness of  God  :  in  other  Avords,  to  display  and  vindicate  the 
perfect  holiness  and  uprightness  of  his  character  as  a 
moral  Governor.  This  display  being  made,  he  can  with^ 
propriety  forgive  all  that  believe  in  Christ  Jesus."  .... 
*'  To  enable  God  righteously  to  pardon  the  repenting  sin- 
ner, the  atonement  must  give  the  same  support  to  law,  or 
must  display  as  impressively  the  perfect  holiness  and 
justice  of  God,  as  the  execution  of  the  law  on  transgres- 
sors would.  It  must  be  something  different  from  the 
execution  of  the  law  itself;  because  it  is  to  be  a  substi- 
tute for  it,  something  which  renders  it  safe  and  proper  to 
suspend  the  regular  course  of  distributive  justice."  .... 
*'Now  such  an  expedient,  the  text  represents  the  sacrifice 
of  Christ  to  be.  It  is  a  declaration  of  the  righteousness 
of  God;  so  that  he  might  be  just"  —  might  secure  the 
objects  of  distributive  justice,  as  it  becomes  a  righteous 
moral  governor  to  do  —  ^  and  yet  might  justify,'  or  acquit 
and  exempt  from  punishment  him  that  believeth  in  Jesus. 
It  was  in  the  nature  of  it,  an  exhibition  or  proof  of  the 
righteousness  of  God.  It  did  not  consist  in  the  execution 
of  the  law  on  any  being  whatever ;  ^r  it  was  a  substi- 
tute for  the  execution  of  it."  ...  .  "Its  immediate  influ- 
ence was  not  on  the  character  and  relations  of  men  as 
transgressors,  nor  on  the  claims  of  the  law  upon  them. 
Its  direct  operation  was  on  the  feelings  and  apprehen- 
sions of  the  beings  at  large,  who  are  under  the  moral  gov- 
ernment of  God.  In  two  respects  it  coincided  precisely 
with  a  public  execution  of  the  law  itself :  its  immediate 
influence  was  on  the  same  persons ;  and  that  influence 


OLD    AND    NEW    THEOLOGY.  101 

was  produced  in  the  same  way  —  by  means  of  a  public 
exhibition."  .  .  .  *'  The  only  difficulty  is  to  understand 
how  this  exhibition  was  a  display  of  the  righteousness  of 
God.  To  solve  it,  some  have  resorted  to  the  supposition 
that  the  Son  of  God  became  our  sponsor,  and  satisfied 
the  demands  of  the  law  by  suffering  in  our  stead.  But 
to  this  hypothesis  there  are  strong  objections.  To  sup- 
pose that  Christ  was  really  and  truly  our  sponsor,  and 
that  he  suffered  in  this  character,  would  involve  such  a 
transfer  of  legal  obligations  and  liabilities  and  merits,  as 
is  inadmissible ;  and  to  suppose  anything  short  of  this, 
will  not  explain  the  difficulty.  For  if,  while  we  call  him 
a  sponsor,  we  deny  that  he  was  legally  holden  or  respon- 
sible for  us,  and  liable  in  equity  to  suffer  in  our  stead,  we 
assign  no  intelligible  reason  why  his  sufferings  should 
avail  anything  for  our  benefit,  or  display  at  all  the  right- 
eousness of  God."  .  .  .  "We  must,  therefore,  resort  to 
some  other  solution.  And  what  is  more  simple,  and  at 
the  same  time  satisfactory,  than  that  which  is  suggested 
by  the  text  ?  The  atonement  was  an  exhibition  or  dis- 
play ;  that  is,  it  was  a  symbolical  transaction.  It  was  a 
transaction  in  which  God  and  his  Son  were  the  actors ; 
and  they  acted  in  perfect  harmony,  though  performing 
different  parts  in  the  august  drama."  .  .  .  .  "  The  object 
of  both,  in  this  affecting  tragedy,  was  to  make  an  im- 
pression on  the  minds  of  rational  beings  everywhere  and 
to  the  end  of  time.  And  the  impression  to  be  made  was, 
that  God  is  a  holy  and  righteous  God  ;  that  while  inclined 
to  mercy  he  cannot  forget  the  demands  of  justice  and  the 
danger  to  his  kingdom  from  the  pardon  of  the  guilty ; 
that  he  must  show  his  feelings  on  this  subject ;  and  show 
them  so  clearly  and  fully  that  all  his  rational  creatures 


102  OLD    AND    NEW    THEOLOGY. 

shall  feel  that  he  honours  his  law  while  suspending  its 
operation,  as  much  as  he  would  by  the  execution  of  it. 
But  how,  it  may  be  asked,  are  these  things  expressed  or 
represented  by  this  transaction  ?  The  answer  is  —  sym- 
bolically. The  Son  of  God  came  down  to  our  world  to 
do  and  suJBfer  what  he  did ;  not  merely  for  the  sake  of 
doing  those  acts  and  enduring  those  sorrows,  but  for  the 
sake  of  the  impression  to  be  made  on  the  minds  of  all 
beholders,  by  his  labouring  and  suffering  in  this  manner." 

The  principal  difference  between  these  views  and  those 
of  Dr.  Beman  and  others  of  the  same  school,  is  that  Dr. 
Murdock  has  laid  aside  the  usual  orthodox  terms,  and  ex- 
pressed his  sentiments  in  other  language.  Perhaps  this 
was  one  reason  why  such  a  sensation  was  produced  in  the 
community  by  the  appearance  of  the  sermon.  Professor 
Stuart  published  two  discourses,  (if  we  remember  cor- 
rectly), with  a  view  to  counteract  its  influence ;  and  Dr. 
Dana,  of  Londonderry,  preached  a  sermon  (probably  for 
the  same  end),  before  the  jConvention  of  Congregational 
and  Presbyterian  Ministers  of  New  Hampshire,  which 
was  published  by  their  request.  From  this  sermon  we 
shall  give  some  extracts  as  expressive  of  the  Old  Theology 
on  this  subject.  His  text  is  in  Isa.  liii.  4,  5,  6  ;  concern- 
ing which  he  observes : 

"  Jehovah,  the  just,  the  benevolent  Jehovah,  is  pleased 
to  bruise  him  and  to  put  him  to  grief.  Unparalleled  mys- 
tery !  How  shall  it  be  explained  ?  One  fact,  and  that 
alone,  explains  it.  He  suffered  as  a  substitute.  He  suf- 
fered not  for  himself,  but  for  those  whom  he  came  to  save. 
This  the  prophet  unequivocally  declares  in  the  text ;  and 
declares  in  such  variety  and  accumulation  of  language, 
as  is  calculated  to  make  the  very  strongest  impression  on 


OLD    AND    NEW    THEOLOGY.  103 

the  mind."  ...  "A  moment's  reflection  may  convince 
us  that  if  any  of  our  sinful  race  are  to  be  pardoned  and 
saved,  an  atonement  is  absolutely  necessary.  God  is  holy 
and  just ;  infinitely  and  immutably  holy  and  just.  These 
attributes  imply  that  he  has  a  perfect  and  irreconcilable 
aversion  to  all  sin ;  and  must  manifest  to  his  creatures 
this  aversion.  But  how  can  this  be  done  if  sin  be  par- 
doned without  an  atonement  ?  Would  not  the  great  Je- 
hovah in  this  case,  practically  deny  himself  ?  Would  not 
the  lustre  of  his  glorious  attributes  be  awfully  eclipsed 
and  tarnished  ?  Further,  as  the  Sovereign  of  the  uni- 
verse, God  has  given  his  intelligent  creatures  a  law.  This 
law,  while  it  requires  perfect  obedience,  must  likewise  be 
enforced  by  penalties.  Nor  is  it  enough  that  these  penal- 
ties be  merely  denounced.  They  must  be  executed  on 
those  who  incur  them  by  transgression ;  or  on  a  surety. 
Otherwise,  where  is  the  truth  of  the  Lawgiver  ?  Where 
is  the  stability  of  the  law  ?  Where  is  the  dignity  of  gov- 
ernment?" ....  "  Still  further,  it  is  easy  to  see  that 
satisfaction,  if  made  by  a  surety,  must  correspond  with 
the  debt  due  from  those  in  whose  behalf  it  is  rendered. 
Mankind  universally  owe  to  their  heavenly  Sovereign,  a 
debt  of  perfect,  undeviating  obedience."  .  .  .  .  "  We  have 
likewise  contracted  a  debt  of  punishment.  This  results 
from  the  penal  sanction  of  the  law,  and  is  proportionate 
to  the  evil  of  sin.  It  corresponds  with  the  majesty  and 
glory  of  the  Lawgiver,  and  with  our  own  obligations  to 
obedience.  Now  if  a  surety  undertake  for  us,  he  must 
pay  our  debt  in  both  these  regards."  ....  "As  to  his 
sufferings,  we  contend  not  that  the  Redeemer  endured 
precisely  the  same  misery,  in  kind  or  degree,  to  which 
the  sinner  was  exposed,  and  which  he  must  otherwise  have 


104  OLD    AND    NEW    THEOLOGY. 

endured.  This  was  neither  necessary  nor  possible.  In- 
finite purity  could  not  know  the  tortures  of  remorse.  In- 
finite excellence  could  not  feel  the  anguish  of  malignant 
passions.  Nor  was  it  needful  that  the  Saviour,  in  making 
atonement  for  human  guilt,  should  sustain  sufferings  with- 
out end.  Such,  it  is  admitted,  must  have  been  the 
punishment  of  the  sinner,  had  he  borne  it  in  his  own  per- 
son. But  this  necessity  results,  not  directly  from  the 
penal  sanction  of  the  law,  but  from  the  impossibility  that 
a  finite  transgressor  should,  within  any  limited  period, 
render  satisfaction  for  his  sins.  But  the  infinite  dignity 
of  the  Saviour  imparted  an  infinite  value  and  efiicacy  to 
his  temporary  sufferings.  Indeed  it  cannot  be  doubted 
that  he  endured  as  much  of  that  same  misery  to  which 
the  sinner  stands  exposed,  as  consisted  with  the  perfect 
innocence,  dignity,  and  glory  of  his  character.  He  suf- 
fered not  only  the  united  assaults  of  human  cruelty  and 
infernal  rage,  but  the  far  more  torturing  pains  of  divine 
dereliction.  And  inasmuch  as  the  Scripture  expressly 
declares  that  in  redeeming  us  from  the  law  he  was  mad« 
a  curse  for  us,  we  are  constrained  to  conclude  that  his 
sufferings  were  a  substantial  execution  of  the  threatening 
of  the  law ;  a  real  endurance  of  its  penalty,  so  far  as  the 
nature  of  the  case  admitted  or  required." 

With  reference  to  Dr.  Murdock's*  views,  Dr.  Dana 
observes :  '^  In  the  first  place,  it  tends,  apparently  at 
least,  to  subvert  the  law.  It  declares  that  '  the  atone- 
ment is  something  different  from  the  execution  of  the  law, 
and  a  substitute  for  it;'  that  'it  did  not  fulfil  the  law,  or 
satisfy  its  demands  on  transgressors.'  In  accordance 
with  these  views,  it  declares  that  '  the  justification  of  be- 

*  Dr.  Murduck  is  not  meutioned  by  name. 


OLD    AND    NEW    THEOLOGY.  105 

lievers  is  not  founded  on  the  principles  of  law  and  dis- 
tributive justice ;'  and  further,  that  it  is  a  real  departure 
from  the  regular  course  of  justice  ;  and  such  a  departure 
from  it,  as  leaves  the  claims  of  the  law  on  the  persons 
justified  for  ever  unsatisfied.  Without  commenting  at 
large  on  these  suggestions,  so  peculiar  and  so  grating  (as 
I  apprehend)  to  the  ears  and  hearts  of  most  Christians, 
I  will  simply  set  before  you  the  Saviour's  own  intentions, 
in  his  advent  and  mediation ;  and  these  as  declared  in  his 
own  words :  '  Think  not  (says  he)  that  I  am  come  to 
destroy  the  law  or  the  prophets.  I  am  not  come  to  de- 
stroy, but  to  fulfil.  Eor  verily  I  say  unto  you,  till  heaven 
and  earth  pass,  one  jot  or  one  tittle  shall  in  no  wise  pass 
from  the  law  till  all  be  fulfilled.'  Surely  then  his  atone- 
ment was  not  ^  a  substitute  for  the  execution  of  the  law.' 
On  the  contrary,  his  obedience  and  sufferings  were  a  sub- 
stantial fulfilment  of  its  precept  and  its  penalty;  and 
were  designed  to  procure  the  justification  and  salvation 
of  men,  not  through  a  '  departure  from  the  regular  course 
of  justice;'  not  by  'leaving  the  claims  of  the  law  for 
ever  unsatisfied;'  but  in  perfect  accordance  with  the 
immutable  and  everlasting  principles  both  of  law  and 
justice."  .... 

2.  ''  This  scheme  gives  us  such  views  of  the  divine 
character,  as  are  equally  inexplicable  and  distressing." 
.  .  .  .  "A  Being  of  spotless  innocence,  and  divine  dignity; 
a  Being  adored  by  angels  and  dear  to  God ;  a  Being,  in 
short,  the  most  lovely  and  glorious  that  the  intelligent 
creation  ever  saw,  is  subjected  to  suiferings  more  com- 
plicated and  severe  than  were  ever  before  endured  in  our 
world ;  and  all  this  not  by  way  of  substitution ;  not  by 


106  OLD    AND    NEW    THEOLOaT, 

"way  of  satisfaction  for  the  sins  of  others  ;  but  of  exhihi' 
tion  or  disj)lay  V 

3.  "  It  is  a  serious  question  whether  the  theory  in  view 
does  not  comprise  a  virtual  denial  of  the  atonement  itself. 
It  leaves  us  the  name ;  but  what  does  it  leave  of  the 
reality  ?  An  exhibition  is  not  an  atonement.  A  display 
is  not  an  atonement.  A  mere  symbolical  transaction  is 
not  an  atonement."  .... 

"  Where,  then,  let  it  be  asked  in  the  fourth  place,  is 
the  foundation  of  the  believer's  hope  ?  It  is  a  notorious 
fact,  that  the  great  body  of  Christians  in  every  age  have 
embraced  the  doctrine  of  the  vicarious  sufferings  and  obe- 
dience of  their  Saviour.  Pressed  with  a  sense  of  guilt, 
they  have  taken  refuge  in  his  atoning  blood.  Conscious 
of  the  imperfection  of  their  best  obedience,  they  have 
trusted  in  his  righteousness  alone.  United  to  their  Re- 
deemer by  living  faith,  they  have  assured  themselves  of 
a  personal  interest  in  his  atonement  and  righteousness. 
And  they  have  exulted  in  the  thought  that  this  method 
of  salvation  met  all  the  demands,  and  secured  all  the 
honours,  of  the  divine  law  and  justice.  Shall  Christians 
now  be  told  that  this  is  mere  dream  and  delusion ;  that 
no  proper  satisfaction  for  their  sins  has  ever  been  made ; 
that  their  justification  is  nothing  but  an  absolute  pardon; 
and  that  even  this  is  a  '  departure  from  the  regular  course 
of  justice  V  Doctrine  like  this  is  calculated  to  appal  the 
believer's  heart,  and  plant  thorns  in  his  dying  pillow.  It 
is  even  calculated  to  send  a  pang  to  the  bosoms  of  the 
blest ;  to  silence  those  anthems  of  praise  which  the  re- 
deemed on  high  are  ofiering  *  to  Him  that  loved  them  and 
washed  them  from  their  sins  in  his  own  blood.'  " 

A  further  expression  of  Old-school  views  is  contained 


OLD    AND    NEW    THEOLOGY.  107 

in  the  following  language  of  Dr.  Alexander :  "  The 
penalty  of  a  holy,  violated  law,  was  the  only  thing  which 
stood  in  the  way.  Mere  sufferings  of  any  one  are  of  no 
value,  except  in  relation  to  some  end.  The  sufferings  of 
Christ  could  no  otherwise  open  a  way  of  pardon  but  by 
removing  the  penalty  of  the  law ;  but  they  could  have  no 
tendency  to  remove  the  penalty  but  by  his  enduring  it. 
Sufferings  not  required  by  law  and  justice  must  have  been 
unjust  sufferings,  and  never  could  effect  any  good.  Such 
exhibition  could  not  have  the  effect  of  demonstrating 
God's  hatred  of  sin,  for  it  was  not  the  punishment  of  sin ; 
nor  could  it  make  the  impression  on  the  world,  that  the 
Ruler  of  the  universe  would  hereafter  punish  sin ;  for, 
according  to  this  theory,  sin  goes  unpunished,  and  dread- 
ful sufferings  are  inflicted  on  the  innocent,  to  whom  no 
sin  is  imputed.  This  scheme  as  really  subverts  the  true 
doctrine  of  atonement,  as  that  of  Socinus  ;  and  no  reason 
appears  why  it  was  necessary  that  the  person  making  this 
exhibition  should  be  a  divine  person." — Treatise  on  Jus- 
tification. 

Che  whole  controversy  concerning  the  nature  of  the 
atonement,  may  be  resolved  into  two  questions :  1.  Is 
God  bound  to  punish  sin  ?  and  2.  Does  this  necessity 
arise  from  the  nature  of  God,  or  from  circumstances  which 
lie  without  him  ?  In  other  words,  do  his  holiness  and 
justice  require  him  to  manifest  his  abhorrence  to  sin  by 
inflicting  upon  it  deserved  punishment  ?  or  does  the  ne- 
cessity for  manifesting  this  abhorrence  lie  only  in  "  rea- 
sons of  state,"  as  civilians  say — i.  e.  in  the  necessity  of 
making  a  salutary  impression  upon  his  moral  govern- 
ment ? 

That  the  veracity  of  God  requires  him  to  execute  the 


108  OLD    AND    NEW    THEOLOGY. 

threatenings  of  his  law,  we  have  already  shown.  But 
why  do  we  find  such  a  law  in  existence  —  a  law  binding 
him  to  punish  sin  ?  ''  The  opposition  of  God's  law  to 
sin,"  says  Symington,  is  "just  the  opposition  of  his  na- 
ture to  sin ;  his  nature,  not  his  will,  is  the  ultimate  stan- 
dard of  morality.  His  determination  to  punish  sin  is  not 
voluntary^  but  necessary.  He  does  not  annex  a  punish- 
ment to  sin  because  he  wills  to  do  so,  but  because  his 
nature  requires  it.  If  the  whole  of  such  procedure  could 
be  resolved  into  mere  volition,  then  it  is  not  only  sup- 
posable  that  God  might  not  have  determined  to  punish 
sin,  but,  which  is  blasphemous,  that  he  might  have  deter- 
mined to  reward  it.  This  is  not  more  clearly  deducible 
from  the  nature  of  a  being  of  perfect  moral  excellence, 
than  plainly  taught  in  Scripture  :  "  He  will  by  no  means 
clear  the  guilty.  The  Lord  is  a  jealous  God,  he  will  not 
forgive  your  transgressions  nor  your  sins.  Thou  art  not 
a  God  that  hath  pleasure  in  wickedness,  neither  shall  evil 
dwell  with  thee.  God  is  angry  with  the  wicked  every 
day.  The  Lord  will  take  vengeance  on  his  adversaries, 
and  he  reserveth  wrath  for  his  enemies.  Who  can  st^d 
before  his  indignation  ?  and  who  can  abide  in  the  fierce- 
ness of  his  anger  ?  Is  God  unrighteous  who  taketh  ven- 
geance? Our  God  is  a  consuming  fire."  (Exod.  xxiv.  7; 
Josh.  xxiv.  19;  Psa.  v.  4;  vi.  11;  Neh.  i.  2,  6;  Rom. 
ai.  5;  Heb.  xii.  29).  "We  may  confidently  appeal  to 
every  unprejudiced  mind  whether  such  descriptions  as 
these  do  not  fully  bear  us  out  in  the  view  we  have  taken 
of  God's  retributive  justice.  And  if  this  view  is  correct, 
sin  cannot  go  unpunished  ;  it  cannot  be  pardoned  without 
a  satisfaction ;  God  cannot  but  take  vengeance  on  ini- 
quity ;  to  do  otherwise  would  be  to  violate  the  perfection 


OLD    AND    NEW    THEOLOGY.  109 

of  his  nature.  Just  he  is,  and  just  he  ever  must  be  ;  and 
there  is  only  one  way,  that  of  an  atoning  sacrifice,  by 
which  he  can  be  at  once  a  just  God  and  a  Saviour." — 
Symington  on  the  Atonement. 

If  the  only  reason  why  God  is  bound  to  punish  sin 
arises  from  the  effect  to  be  produced  upon  the  universe, 
then  if  he  had  created  no  other  intelligent  beings  except 
man,  no  atonement  would  have  been  necessary — because 
no  moral  beings  would  exist,  upon  whom  to  make  this 
impression — and  of  course  he  might  have  forgiven  us, 
irrespective  of  an  atonement,  without  doing  any  injury 
to  his  government.  But,  if  the  necessity  of  punishing 
sin  lies  primarily  in  his  nature,  an  atonement  would  be 
as  necessary  for  the  redemption  of  a  single  sinner,  if  he 
had  been  the  only  being  in  the  universe,  as  it  was  under 
the  circumstances  in  which  this  scheme  of  mercy  was 
devised.  And  this  we  believe  to  be  the  fact.  Otherwise 
God  does  not  possess  esse7itially ,  that  holiness,  which  the 
Scriptures  represent  as  constituting  the  glory  of  his 
character. 

If  then  the  question  be  asked.  Why  is  God  bound  to 
punish  sin  ?  the  first  answer  is,  because  it  is  right — sin 
being  opposite  to  his  nature — and  his  nature  therefore 
requires  him  to  manifest  towards  it  his  abhorrence.  Is 
the  question  repeated  ?  We  reply,  it  is  from  a  regard  to 
his  la^v  and  government.  Though  the  former  is  the  pri- 
mary reason,  the  latter  is  of  great  importance,  and  must 
never  be  forgotten.  Taken  together  they  show  not  only 
the  necessity  of  an  atonement  in  order  to  the  pardon  of 
sin,  but  that  the  atonement  must  consist  in  a  substantial 
endurance  of  the  penalty  of  the  law.  On  any  other 
principle,  sin  goes  unpunished ;  and  we  are  driven  to  the 
10 


110  OLD    AND    NEW    THEOLOGY. 

conclusion  before  adverted  to,  that  God  is  not  "  glorious 
in  hoUfiess"  —  '^  a  just  God,"  who  *'will  by  no  means 
clear  the  guilty." 

The  following  extract  from  Dr.  Bellamy  will  show  how 
nearly  the  above  views  correspond  with  the  sentiments 
prevalent  in  New  England  a  hundred  years  ago :  "It 
was  fit,  if  any  intelligent  creature  should  at  any  time 
swerve  at  all  from  the  perfect  will  of  God,  that  he  should 
for  ever  lose  his  favour  and  fall  under  his  everlasting  dis- 
pleasure, for  a  thing  so  infinitely  wrong :  and  in  such  a 
case  it  was  fit  the  Governor  of  the  world  should  be  infi- 
nitely displeased,  and  publicly  testify  his  infinite  dis- 
pleasure by  a  punishment  adequate  thereto,  inflicted  on 
the  sinning  creature.  This  would  satisfy  justice ;  for 
justice  is  satisfied  when  the  thing  which  is  wrong  is 
punished  according  to  its  desert.  Hence,  it  was  fit,  when 
by  a  constitution,  holy,  just,  and  good,  Adam  was  made 
a  public  head,  to  represent  his  race,  and  act  not  only  for 
himself,  but  for  all  his  posterity — it  was  fit,  I  say,  that 
he  and  all  his  race,  for  his  first  transgression,  should  lose 
the  favour,  and  fall  under  the  everlasting  displeasure  of 
the  Almighty.  It  was  fit  that  God  should  be  infinitely 
displeased  at  so  abominable  a  thing  —  and  that  as  Gov- 
ernor of  the  world,  he  should  publicly  bear  testimony 
against  it,  as  an  infinite  evil,  by  inflicting  the  infinite 
punishment  the  law  threatened ;  i.  e.  by  damning  the 
whole  world.  This  would  have  satisfied  justice  ;  for  jus- 
tice is  satisfied  when  justice  takes  place — when  the  guilty 
are  treated  with  that  severity  they  ought  to  be — when  sin 
is  punished  as  being  what  it  is.  Now  Jesus  Christ,  the 
Son  of  God,  has,  by  his  Father's  appointment  and  appro- 
bation, assumed  our  nature — taken  the  place  of  a  guilty 


OLD    AND    NEW    THEOLOGY.  Ill 

world — and  had  not  only  Adam's  first  transgression,  but 
the  iniquities  of  us  all  laid  upon  him,  and  in  our  room 
and  stead,  hath  suffered  the  wrath  of  God,  the  curse  of 
the  law,  ofiering  up  himself  a  sacrifice  to  God  for  the  sins 
of  men :  and  hereby  the  infinite  evil  of  sin  and  the  right- 
eousness of  the  law  are  publicly  owned  and  acknowledged, 
and  the  deserved  punishment  voluntarily  submitted  unto 
by  man,  i.  e.  by  his  representative :  and  thus  justice  is 
satisfied  ;  for  justice  is  satisfied  when  justice  takes  place  ; 
and  sin  is  now  treated  as  being  what  it  is,  as  much  as  if 
God  had  damned  the  whole  world  ;  and  God,  as  Governor, 
appears  as  severe  against  it.  And  thus  the  righteousness 
of  God  is  declared  and  manifested,  by  Christ's  being  set 
forth  to  be  a  propitiation  for  sin ;  and  he  may  now  be  just 
and  yet  justify  him  that  believes  in  Jesus." — True  Re- 
ligion Delineated,  pp.  332,  333. 

Similar  to  the  views  here  expressed,  were  those  of  the 
early  European  divines.  "  There  was  no  defect  in  the 
payment  he  made.  We  owed  a  debt  of  blood  to  the  law, 
and  his  life  was  offered  up  as  a  sacrifice ;  otherwise  the 
law  had  remained  in  its  full  vigour,  and  justice  had  been 
unsatisfied.  That  a  divine  person  hath  suffered  our 
punishment,  is  properly  the  reason  of  our  redemption." 

"The   blood  of  Christ  shed,  (Matt.  xxvi.   28), 

poured  forth  from  his  veins  and  offered  up  to  God,  in 
that  precise  consideration,  ratifies  the  New  Testament. 
The  sum  is,  our  Saviour  by  his  death  suffered  the  male- 
diction of  the  law,  and  his  divine  nature  gave  a  full  value 

to  his  sufferings." "And  God,  who  was  infinitely 

provoked,  is  infinitely  pleased." — Bates. 

"A  surety,  sponsor,  for  us,  the  Lord  Christ  was,  by 
his  voluntary  undertaking  out  of  his  rich  grace  and  love, 


112  OLD    AND    NEW    THEOLOGY. 

to  do,  answer,  and  perform  all  that  is  required  on  our 
parts,  that  we  may  enjoy  the  benefits  of  the  covenant^ 
the  grace  and  glory  prepared,  proposed,  and  promised  in 
it,  in  the  way  and  manner  determined  on  by  divine 
wisdom.  And  this  may  be  reduced  unto  two  heads :  1. 
His  answering  for  our  transgressions  against  the  first 
covenant.  2.  His  purchase  and  procurement  of  the  grace 
of  the  new.  He  was  made  a  curse  for  us,  that  the  bless- 
ing of  Abraham  might  come  upon  us.  Gal.  iii.  13 — 15. 
....  That  is,  he  underwent  the  punishment  due  unto  our 
sins,  to  make  atonement  for  us,  by  offering  himself  a  pro- 
piatory  sacrifice  for  the  expiation  of  our  sins." — Owen. 

"  Christ  hath  redeemed  us  who  believe  in  his  name  from 
the  terrible  curse  of  the  law,  and  bought  us  ofi"  from  that 
servitude  and  misery  to  which  it  inexorably  doomed  us, 
by  being  himself  made  a  curse  for  us,  and  enduring  the 
penalty  which  our  sins  had  deserved." — Doddridge. 

"  I  wonder  that  Jerome  and  Erasmus  should  labour  and 
seek  for  I  know  not  what  figure  of  speech,  to  show  that 
Christ  was  not  called  accursed.  Truly  in  this  is  placed 
all  our  hope :  in  this  the  infinite  love  of  God  is  mani- 
fested: in  this  is  placed  our  salvation,  that  God  properly 
and  without  any  figure,  poured  out  all  his  wrath  on  his 
own  Son ;  caused  him  to  be  accursed,  that  he  might  re- 
ceive us  into  his  favour.  Finally,  without  any  figure, 
Christ  was  made  a  curse  for  us,  in  such  a  manner  that 
unless  lie  had  been  truly  God,  he  must  have  remained 
under  the  curse  for  ever,  from  which,  for  our  sakes,  he 
emerged.  For,  indeed,  if  the  obedience  be  figurative  and 
imaginary,  so  must  our  hope  of  glory  be."  —  Beza  as 
quoted  by  Scott. 

These  several  quotations  all  proceed  on  the  principle 


OLD    AND    NEW    THEOLOGY.  113 

that  the  necessity  of  the  atonement  lay  primarily  in  the 
nature  of  God :  that  his  justice  must  be  appeased  by  a 
true  and  proper  satisfaction^  before  it  was  possible  for 
him  to  regard  sinners  with  favour  ;  and  that  this  satisfac- 
tion having  been  made  by  the  vicarious  and  expiatory 
sacrifice  of  Jesus  Christ,  who  "hath  given  himself  for  us 
an  offering  and  a  sacrifice  to  God  for  a  sweet  smelling 
savour,"  pardon  and  salvation  are  freely  bestowed  upon 
believing  sinners,  in  perfect  harmony  with  all  the  divine 
attributes.  With  the  work  which  Christ  performed,  God 
the  Father  was  infinitely  well  pleased,  and  through  him 
he  looks  with  complacency  upon  all  who  are  united  to 
him  by  faith.  He  was  well  pleased,  because  Christ  per- 
formed all  that  law  and  justice  required — for,  as  Bellamy 
observes,  "justice  is  satisfied  when  justice  takes  place.'* 
"I  have  finished  the  work,"  said  Christ,  "which  thou 
gavest  me  to  do."  And  again,  just  before  he  expired  he 
said,  "It  is  finished."  His  work  oi  active  obedience  was 
finished  when  he  uttered  the  first ;  and  when  he  spake 
the  last,  his  work  of  suffering  was  also  completed.  We 
behold  him  now  as  "the  Lamb  of  God,"  sacrificed  to  pro- 
pitiate the  divine  favour ;  John  i.  29  :  as  "  the  propitia- 
tion for  our  sins  ;"  1  John  ii.  2  :  as  a  "  sin-offering''  pre- 
sented to  God  for  a  sacrifice  or  expiation ;  2  Cor.  v.  21, 
Gr. :  as  "a  ransom,"  or  redemption-price,  to  "redeem 
us  from  the  curse  of  the  law;"  Matt.  xx.  28;  Gal.  iii. 
13  :  as  "  the  man,  God's  fellow ;"  "on  whom  was  laid  the 
iniquity  of  us  all;"  who  "bare  our  sins  in  his  own  body 
on  the  tree;"  Zech.  xiii.  7;  Isa.  liii.  6;  1  Pet.  ii.  24: 
as,  in  fine,  both  the  offering  and  the  priest,  who  having 
"appeared  to  put  away  sin  by  the  sacrifice  of  himself," 
"offered  himself  without  spot  to  God,"  and,  "by  his  own 
10* 


114  OLD    AND    NEW    THEOLOGY. 

blood,  entered  into  the  holy  place,  having  obtained  eter- 
nal redemption  for  us ;"  Heb.  ix.  12,  14,  26.  How  ex- 
plicit are  these  passages  with  regard  to  the  nature  ol 
Christ's  sufferings  !  If  Christ  did  not  offer  himself  a  sac- 
rifice for  our  sins ;  if  he  did  not  endure  substantially  the 
penalty  of  the  law  in  order  to  make  satisfaction  to  divine 
justice  in  behalf  of  those  who  should  believe  in  him,  we 
know  not  how  to  interpret  the  plainest  language. 

It  has  been  objected  that  the  idea  of  punishment  was 
not  involved  in  the  Jewish  sacrifices,  and  hence  that  those 
passages  which  describe  Christ's  mediatorial  work  by  allu- 
sions to  those  sacrifices,  do  not  teach  that  his  sufferings 
were  penal.  By  a  reference  to  Magee  on  "Atonement 
and  Sacrifice,"  it  will  be  seen  that  the  Jews  regarded  the 
victims  offered  in  sacrifice  as  "  bearing  the  guilt"  of  the 
people ;  which  is  the  same  thing  as  saying  that  they  bore 
their  2^unishment,  because  guilt  and  punishment  are  cor- 
relates of  each  other.  The  following  remarks  of  Patrick 
in  his  Commentary  on  Lev.  xvi.  21,  22,  are  to  the  same 
effect :  "  Laying  of  the  hand  upon  the  head  of  the  beast 
was  a  rite  used  in  all  sorts  of  sacrifices,  whether  burnt- 
offerings,  peace-offerings,  or  sin-offerings."  ....  "This 
rite  signifies  as  much  as  if  they  had  said,  Whatever  we 
have  done  amiss,  let  not  us,  but  this  sacrifice  be  charged 
with  it ;  that  is,  let  it  bear  the  punishment  which  we  de- 
serve." ....  ''By  putting  his  hand  on  the  head  of  the 
goat  and  confessing  their  sins  over  him,  (with  prayer  to 
God  to  remit  them,)  they  were  all  charged  upon  the  goat, 
and  the  punishment  of  them  transferred  from  the  Israel- 
ites unto  it."  .  .  .  .  "And  it  appears  by  the  form  of  all 
other  sin-offerings,  which  were  occasionally  offered  at 
other  times,  that  he  who  brought  them  put  off  the  guilt 


OLD    AND    NEW    THEOLOGY.  115 

■which  he  had  contracted,  from  himself,  and  laid  it  on  the 
sacrifice  which  was  to  die  for  him."  Again  ;  "  This  [i.  e. 
the  goat's  bearing  upon  him  all  their  iniquities,]  shows 
more  fully  still  the  nature  of  this  sacrifice,  on  which  all 
their  iniquities,  i.  e.  the  punishment  of  them  was  laid, 
that  he  might  carry  them  away.  For  this  goat  was  not 
capable  to  bear  their  sins,  but  only  their  punishment ;  a3 
Christ  also  did,  who  knew  no  sin,  and  yet  was  made  sin, 
by  having  the  punishment  of  our  sins  laid  on  him." 
Other  commentators  express  the  same  views.  Henry  on 
this  passage  remarks,  "  One  of  these  goats  must  be  slain 
in  token  of  a  satisfaction  to  be  made  to  God's  justice  for 
sin."  .  .  .  .  "  He  [the  high-priest]  is  next  to  confess  the 
sins  of  Israel,  with  both  his  hands  on  the  head  of  the 
scape-goat."  ....  "By  this  confession  he  must  put  the 
sins  of  Israel  '  upon  the  head  of  the  goat ;'  that  is,  acting 
faith  upon  the  divine  appointment,  which  constituted  such 
a  translation,  he  must  transfer  the  punishment  incurred, 
from  the  sinner  to  the  sacrifice."  Says  Scott,  "  He  [the 
high-priest]  confessed  over  it  [the  scape-goat]  all  the  sins 
of  Israel,  of  every  kind,  with  their  various  aggravations. 
Thus  the  guilt  was  typically  transferred  to  it  in  respect 
to  the  temporal  punishment,  &c."  ....  ''When  the  sins 
of  Israel  had  thus  been  '  put  upon  the  head  of  the  goat,' 
a  proper  person  was  sent  to  lead  him  away  into  the  wild- 
erness, to  a  place  sufficiently  distant  from  the  habitations 
of  men  ;  and  there  to  let  him  go  at  liberty,  bearing  upon 
him  their  sins,  never  more  to  be  heard  of.  Christ  '  bore 
our  sins  in  his  own  body  on  the  tree;'  they  were  imputed 
to  him,  and  he  bore  the  punishment  due  to  them." 

We  have  indeed  met  with  no  commentary,  which  is 
regarded  as  evangelical,  that  disconnects  the  idea  of  vica- 


116  OLD    AND    NEW    THEOLOaY. 

rious  punishment  from  the  sacrificial  rites  of  the  Old  Tes- 
tament dispensation,  or  denies  the  analogy  between  that 
and  the  penal  nature  of  Christ's  sufferings.  So  clearly 
is  this  doctrine  taught,  and  so  adapted  is  it  to  remedy  the 
guilt  and  misery  of  our  fallen  condition,  that  we  doubt 
whether  a  mind  truly  enlightened  can  fail  to  perceive  it, 
or  an  awakened  conscience  be  insensible  to  its  value.  In 
view  of  it,  the  redeemed  sinner  can  exclaim  with  grateful 
emotion,  "  0  Lord,  I  will  praise  thee :  though  thou  wast 
angry  with  me,  thine  anger  is  turned  away,  and  thou  com- 
fortedst  me."  "God  is  in  Christ  reconciling  the  world 
unto  himself,  not  imputing  their  trespasses  unto  them." 
*'  Whosoever  belie veth  on  him  shall  not  be  confounded." 

"With  joy,  with  grief,  that  healing  hand  I  see  ; 
Alas  !   how  low  !   how  far  beneath  the  skies, 
The  skies  it  formed,  and  now  it  bleeds  for  me — 
But  bleeds  the  balm  I  want — 
There  hangs  all  human  hope  ;  that  nail  supports 
The  falling  universe :   that  gone,  we  drop  ; 
Horror  receives  us,  and  the  dismal  wish 
Creation  had  been  smothered  in  her  birth." 


CHAPTER  VI. 

JUSTIFICATION A  CONTINUATION  OF  THE  PRECEDING  CHAPTER. 

Intimately  connected  with  the  doctrine  of  atonement, 
is  that  of  justification.  The  different  views,  therefore, 
with  regard  to  the  former,  which  have  been  exhibited  in 
the  last  chapter,  will  give  a  corresponding  complexion  to 


OLD    AND    NEW    THEOLOGY.  117 

our  «ientiments  concerning  the  latter.  Those  who  main- 
tain that  Christ  obeyed  the  law  and  suffered  its  penalty 
in  our  stead,  and  thereby  made  a  true  and  proper  satis- 
faction to  divine  justice,  believe  that  his  obedience  and 
sufferings,  constituting  what  is  usually  styled  his  right- 
eousness, are  imputed  to  the  believer  for  his  justification ; 
Christ's  righteousness  being  received  by  faith  as  the  in- 
strument. Accordingly,  justification  consists  not  only  in 
the  pardon  of  sin,  or,  in  other  words,  in  the  release  of 
the  believing  sinner  from  punishment ;  but  also  in  the 
acceptance  of  his  person  as  righteous  in  the  eye  of  the 
law,  through  the  obedience  of  Christ  reckoned  or  imputed 
to  him ;  by  which  he  has  a  title  to  eternal  life. 

On  the  contrary,  those  who  deny  that  Christ  obeyed 
the  law  and  suffered  its  penalty  as  our  substitute,  deny 
also  the  imputation  of  his  righteousness  for  our  justifica- 
tion ;  and  though  they  retain  the  word  justification,  they 
make  it  consist  in  mere  pardon.^  In  the  eye  of  the  law, 
the  believer,  according  to  their  views,  is  not  justified  at 
all,  and  never  will  be  through  eternity.  Though  on  the 
ground  of  what  Christ  has  done,  God  is  pleased  to  forgive 
the  sinner  upon  his  believing,  Christ's  righteousness  is 


*  "  The  pardon  of  sin  alone  can  with  no  propriety  be  denomi- 
nated justification.  Pardon  and  justification  are  not  only  distinct, 
but  in  common  cases,  utterly  incompatible.  A  culprit  tried  and 
condemned  may  among  men  be  pardoned,  but  it  would  be  a  sole- 
cism to  say,  that  such  a  man  was  justified."  .  .  .  .  "  But  by  the  y)laa 
of  salvation  through  Christ,  there  is  not  only  a  ground  for  pardon, 
but  there  is  rendered  to  the  law  a  righteousness,  which  lays  the 
foundation  for  an  act  of  justification.  By  pardon  the  sinner  is  freed 
from  condemnation  ;  by  justification  he  is  entitled  to  the  heavenly 
inheritance." — Dr.  Alexander. 


118  OLD    AND    NEW    THEOLOGY. 

not  reckoned  in  any  sense  as  his,  or  set  down  to  his  ac- 
count. He  believes,  and  his  faith  or  act  of  believing,  is 
accounted  to  him  for  righteousness ;  that  is,  faith  is  so 
reckoned  to  his  account,  that  God  treats  him  as  if  he  were 
righteous. 

That  the  views  first  given  accord  with  the  general  sen- 
timents of  the  church  since  the  Reformation  is  capable 
of  abundant  proof.  Though  in  the  time  of  the  Reformers 
the  opponents  of  the  true  doctrine  did  not  take  the  same 
ground,  in  every  respect,  which  has  been  taken  since, 
and  which  is  described  in  the  statement  just  made  con- 
cerning the  views  entertained  by  the  advocates  of  the 
New  Theology,  in  one  particular  they  are  all  agreed, 
viz  :  in  rejecting  the  imputation  of  Christ's  righteousness ; 
the  adoption  or  denial  of  which  is  the  basis  of  all  the 
other  differences  that  exist  on  this  subject.  To  this  doc- 
trine, therefore,  the  Reformers  clung,  as  the  sheet-anchor 
of  the  Christian  faith.  Justification  by  faith,  through  the 
imputed  righteousness  of  Christ — this  was  their  doctrine* 
And  so  important  did  they  regard  it,  that  Luther  was 
accustomed  to  denominate  it,  (as  is  well  known),  articulus 
stantis  vel  eadentis  ecclesise  ;  the  very  pillar  on  which  the 
church  rests,  a  denial  of  which  must  result  in  her  ruin. 
The  manner  in  which  his  mind  was  brought  to  entertain 
clear  views  on  this  subject  is  highly  interesting.  "  Three 
days  and  three  nights  together  he  lay  upon  his  bed  with- 
out meat,  drink,  or  any  sleep,  like  a  dead  man,  (as  some 
do  write  of  him),  labouring  in  soul  and  spirit  upon  a  cer- 
tain place  of  St.  Paul  in  the  third  chapter  of  the  Romans, 
"to  declare  his  righteousness,"  [or  justice,]  thinking 
Christ  to  be  sent  for  no  other  end  but  to  show  forth 
God's  justice,  as  an  executor  of  his  law ;  till  at  length 


OLD    AND    NEW    THEOLOGY.  119 

being  assured  and  satisfied  by  the  Lord,  touching  the 
right  meaning  of  these  words,  signifying  the  justice  of 
God  to  be  executed  upon  his  Son  to  save  us  from  the 
stroke  thereof,  he  immediately  upon  the  same,  started  up 
from  his  bed,  so  confirmed  in  faith,  as  nothing  afterwards 
could  appal  him." — Life  of  Luther^  prefixed  to  his  Com- 
mentary on  the  Galatians. 

The  following  extracts  from  Owen  on  Justification  will 
show  the  nature  of  the  controversy  soon  after  the  Refor- 
mation. "  There  are  two  grand  parties  by  whom  the 
doctrine  of  justification  by  the  imputation  of  the  right- 
eousness of  Christ  is  opposed,  namely,  the  Papists  and 
the  Socinians.  But  they  proceed  on  different  principles, 
and  unto  different  ends.  The  design  of  the  one  is  to 
exalt  their  own  merits  ;  of  the  other,  to  destroy  the  merit 
of  Christ."  .  .  .  .  "  Those  of  the  Roman  church  plainly 
say,  that  upon  the  infusion  of  a  habit  of  grace,  with  the 
expulsion  of  sin  and  the  renovation  of  our  natures  thereby, 
which  they  call  the  first  justification,  we  are  actually  jus- 
tified before  God,  by  our  own  works  of  righteousness." 

"  They  say,  '  that  this  righteousness  of  works 

is  not  absolutely  perfect,  nor  in  itself  able  to  justify  us  in 
the  sight  of  God,  but  owes  all  its  worth  and  dignity  unto 
this  purpose  unto  the  merit  of  Christ.'  ....  But  '  Christ 
hath  only  merited  the  first  grace  for  us,  that  we  there- 
with, and  thereby,  may  merit  life  eternal.' Hence 

*  those  other  ingredients  of  confession,  absolution,  pen- 
ances, or  commutations,  aids  from  saints  and  angels,  espe- 
cially the  blessed  Virgin,  all  warmed  by  the  fire  of  pur- 
gatory, and  confidently  administered  unto  persons  sick 
of  ignorance,  darkness,  and  sin.'  " "  The  Socin- 
ians, who  expressly  oppose  the  imputation  of  the  right- 


120  OLD    AND    NEW    THEOLOGY. 

eousness  of  Clirist,  plead  for  a  participation  of  its  effects 

or  benefits  only." "  He  [Socinus]  supposeth,  that 

if  all  he  did  in  a  way  of  obedience,  was  due  from  himself 
on  his  own  account,  and  was  only  the  duty  which  he  owed 
unto  God  for  himself  in  his  station  and  circumstances,  as 
a  man  in  this  world,  it  cannot  be  meritorious  for  us,  nor 
any  way  imputed  imto  us.  And  in  like  manner  to  weaken 
the  doctrine  of  his  satisfaction,  and  the  imputation  thereof 
unto  us,  he  contends  that  Christ  offered  as  a  priest  for 
himself,  in  that  kind  of  offering  which  he  made  on  the 

cross." "  Hereby  he  excludes  the  church  from  any 

benefit  by  the  mediation  of  Christ,  but  only  what  consists 
in  his  doctrine,  example,  and  the  exercise  of  his  power  in 
heaven  for  our  good." 

"We  grant  an  inherent  righteousness  in  all  that  do 
believe."  .  .  .  .  "  Tor  the  fruit  of  the  Spirit  is  in  all 
goodness,  and  righteousness,  and  truth.'  Eph.  v.  9. 
*  Being  made  free  from  sin,  we  became  the  servants  of 
righteousness,'  Rom.  vi.  18.  And  our  duty  it  is  to  'follow 
after  righteousness,  godliness,  faith,  love,  meekness,'  1 
Tim.  ii.  22."  ....  "But  although  this  righteousness  of 
believers  be  on  other  accounts  like  the  fruit  of  the  vine, 
that  glads  the  heart  of  God  and  man,  yet  as  unto  our 
justification  before  God,  it  is  like  the  wood  of  the  vine — 
a  pin  is  not  to  be  taken  from  it  to  hang  any  weight  of 
this  cause  upon."  .  .  .  .  "  That  righteousness  which  neither 
answereth  the  law  of  God,  nor  the  end  of  God  in  our  jus- 
tification by  the  gospel,  is  not  that  whereon  we  are  jus- 
tified. But  such  is  this  inherent  righteousness  of  believers, 
even  of  the  best  of  them."  ....  "It  is  imperfect  with 
respect  unto  every  act  and  duty  of  it,  whether  internal 
or  external.     There  is  iniquity  cleaving  unto  our  holy 


OLD    AND    NEW    THEOLOGY.  121 

things,  and  all  our  ^  righteousnesses  are  as  filthy  rags.* 
Isa.  Ixiv.  6." 

"  That  which  is  imputed,  is  the  righteousness  of 
Christ ;  and  briefly  I  understand  hereby,  his  whole  obe- 
dience unto  God  in  all  that  he  did  and  suffered  for  the 
church.  This  I  say  is  imputed  unto  believers,  so  as  to 
become  their  only  righteousness  before  God  unto  the  jus- 
tification of  life.'.'  ....  "The  judgment  of  the  Reformed 
churches  herein  is  known  unto  all."  ....  "Especially 
the  Church  of  England  is  in  her  doctrine  express  as  unto 
the  imputation  of  tlie  righteousness  of  Christ,  both  active 
and  passive,  as  it  is  usually  distinguished.  This  hath 
been  of  late  so  fully  manifested  out  of  her  authentic  wri- 
ings,  that  is,  the  Articles  of  religion,  and  books  of  Homi- 
lies, and  other  writings  publicly  authorized,  that  it  is 
altogether  needless  to  give  any  further  demonstration  of 
it."  ....   "  The  law  hath  two  parts  or  powers  ;  1.  Its 

preceptive  part 2.  The  sanction  on  supposition  of 

disobedience,  binding  the  sinner  unto  punishment."  .... 
"  The  Lord  Jesus  Christ  fulfilled  the  whole  law  for  us ; 
he  did  not  only  undergo  the  penalty  of  it  due  unto  our 
sins,  but  also  yielded  that  perfect  obedience  which  it  did 
require."  .  .  .  .  "  Christ's  fulfilling  the  law  in  obedience 
unto  its  commands,  is  no  less  imputed  unto  us  for  our  jus- 
tification, than  his  undergoing  the  penalty  of  it  is."  .  .  . 
"  Eor  why  was  it  necessary,  or  why  would  God  have  it  so, 
that  the  Lord  Christ,  as  the  surety  of  the  covenant,  should 
undergo  the  curse  and  penalty  of  the  law,  which  we  had 
incurred  the  guilt  of,  by  sin,  that  we  may  be  justified  in 
his  sight  ?  Was  it  not  that  the  glory  and  honour  of  his 
righteousness,  as  the  author  of  the  law,  and  the  supreme 
Governor  of  all  mankind  thereby,  might  not  be  violated 
11 


122  OLD    AND    NEW    THEOLOGY. 

in  the  absolute  impunity  of  tlie  infringers  of  it  ?  And 
if  it  was  requisite  unto  the  glory  of  God,  that  the  penalty 
of  the  law  should  be  undergone  for  us,  or  suffered  by  our 
surety  in  our  stead,  because  we  had  sinned,  wherefore  is 
it  not  as  requisite  unto  the  glory  of  God,  that  the  pre- 
ceptive part  of  the  law  be  complied  wdthal  for  us,  inas- 
much as  obedience  thereunto  is  required  of  us  ?  And  as 
we  are  no  more  able  of  ourselves  to  fulfil  the  law,  in  a 
way  of  obedience,  than  to  undergo  the  penalty  of  it,  so 
as  that  we  may  be  justified  thereby ;  so  no  reason  can  be 
given,  why  God  is  not  as  much  concerned  in  honour  and 
glory,  that  the  preceptive  power  and  part  of  the  law  be 
complied  withal  by  perfect  obedience,  as  that  the  sanction 

of  it  be  established  by  undergoing  its  penalty." 

"  The  conscience  of  a  convinced  sinner,  who  presents  him- 
self in  the  presence  of  God,  finds  all  practically  reduced 
unto  this  one  point,  viz. :  whether  he  will  trust  unto  his 
own  personal  inherent  righteousness,  or  in  a  full  renun- 
ciation of  it,  betake  himself  unto  the  grace  of  God,  and 
the  righteousness  of  Christ  alone."  .  .  .  .  "  The  latter  is 
the  true  and  only  relief  of  distressed  consciences,  of  sinners 
who  are  weary  and  heavy  laden — that  which  alone  they 
may  oppose  unto  the  sentence  of  the  law,  and  interpose 
between  God's  justice  and  their  souls,  wherein  they  may 
take  shelter  from  the  storms  of  that  wrath  which  abideth 
on  them  that  believe  not." 

These  views  of  Owen  accord  with  the  doctrine  of  our 
Confession  of  Faith  and  with  the  sentiments  of  other 
standard  writers.  The  language  of  our  Confession  is  as 
follows :  ''  Those  whom  God  effectually  calleth,  he  also 
freely  justifieth  ;  not  by  infusing  righteousness  into  them, 
but  by  pardoning   their  sins,   and   by   accounting   and 


OLD    AND    NEW    THEOLOGY.  123 

accepting  their  persons  as  righteous,  not  for  any  thing 
wrought  in  them,  or  done  by  them,  but  for  Christ's  sake 
alone :  not  by  imputing  faith  itself,  the  act  of  believing, 
or  any  other  evangelical  obedience  to  them,  as  their 
righteousness ;  but  by  imputing  the  obedience  and  satis- 
faction of  Christ  unto  them,  they  receiving  and  resting 
on  him  and  his  righteousness  by  faith."  Says  Calvin, 
"  He  is  said  to  be  justified  in  the  sight  of  Crod,  who  in 
the  divine  judgment  is  reputed  righteous,  and  accepted 
on  account  of  his  righteousness."  .  .  .  "He  must  be 
said,  therefore,  to  be  justified  hy  worhs^  whose  life  dis- 
covers such  purity  and  holiness  as  to  deserve  the  charac- 
ter of  righteousness  before  the  throne  of  God ;  or  who, 
by  the  integrity  of  his  works,  can  answer  and  satisfy  the 
divine  judgment.  On  the  other  hand,  he  will  be  justified 
hy  faith^  who  being  excluded  from  the  righteousness  of 
works,  apprehends  by  faith  the  righteousness  of  Christ, 
invested  in  which  he  appears  in  the  sight  of  God,  not  as 
a  sinner,  but  as  a  righteous  man.  Thus  we  simply 
explain  justification  to  be  an  acceptance  by  which  God 
receives  into  his  favour  and  esteems  us  as  righteous  per- 
sons ;  and  we  say  that  it  consists  in  the  remission  of  sins 
and  the  imputation  of  Christ's  righteousness." — Oalvins 
Institutes,  vol.  2,  pp.  203,  204. 

These  remarks,  let  it  be  remembered,  refer  to  our  rela- 
tion to  God  in  point  of  laiv.  "  Imputation  is  never  repre- 
sented as  afiecting  the  moral  character,  but  merely  the 
relation  of  men  to  God  and  his  law.  To  impute  sin,  is 
to  regard  and  treat  as  a  sinner ;  and  to  impute  righteous- 
ness is  to  regard  and  treat  as  righteous." — Hodge  on  the 
Romans,  pp.  225,  226.  Though  personally  considered, 
we  are  sinners,  and  as  such,  wholly  undeserving,  yet  when 


124  OLD    AND    NEW    THEOLOGY. 

•we  are  united  to  Christ  by  faith,  his  righteousness  is  so 
imputed  to  us,  or  reckoned  in  law  to  our  account,  that 
God  regards  and  treats  us  as  righteous — "  the  righteous- 
ness of  the  law  being"  considered  as  "fulfilled  in  us," 
because  Christ  has  fulfilled  it  for  us.  It  is  therefore  no 
ground  for  self-complacencj,  but  of  humiliation  and 
gratitude. 

With  reference  to  those  to  whom  Christ's  righteousness 
is  imputed  for  their  justification,  our  standards  say,  "Yet 
inasmuch  as  he  [Christ]  was  given  by  the  Father  for 
them,  and  his  obedience  and  satisfaction  accepted  in  their 
stead,  and  both  freely,  not  for  any  thing  in  them,  their 
justificatioii  is  only  of  free  grace ;  that  both  the  exact 
justice  and  rich  grace  of  God  might  be  glorified  in  the 
justification  of  sinners."  Thus,  according  to  this  view 
of  the  doctrine,  justice  and  mercy  are  harmoniously  and 
sweetly  blended.  While  the  sinner  is  saved  without  con- 
flicting with  the  claims  of  God's  law,  it  is  "  all  to  the 
praise  of  his  glorious  grace."  We  have  other  quotations 
to  make  on  this  subject,  but  shall  reserve  them  until  we 
present  a  few  specimens  of  the  New  Theology. 

Says  Mr.  Finney,  "  Gospel  justification  is  not  by  the 
imputed  righteousness  of  Christ.  Under  the  gospel,  sin- 
ners are  not  justified  by  having  the  obedience  of  Jesus 
Christ  set  down  to  their  account,  as  if  he  had  obeyed  the 
law  for  them  or  in  their  stead.  It  is  not  an  uncommon 
mistake  to  suppose  that  when  sinners  are  justified  under 
the  gospel  they  are  accounted  righteous  in  the  eye  of  the 
law,  by  having  the  obedience  or  righteousness  of  Christ 
imputed  to  them.  I  have  not  time  to  go  into  an  exami- 
nation of  this  subject  now.  I  can  only  say  that  this  idea 
is  absurd  and  impossible,  for  the  reason  that  Jesus  Christ 


OLD    AND    NEW    THEOLOGY.  125 

was  bound  to  obey  tlie  law  for  liimself,  and  could  no  more 
perform  works  of  supererogation,  or  obey  on  our  account, 
than  any  body  else."  *  .  .  .  .  ''Abraham's  faith  was  im- 
puted to  him  for  righteousness,  because  it  was  itself  an 
act  of  righteousness,  and  because  it  worked  by  love,  and 
therefore  produced  holiness.  Justifying  faith  is  holiness, 
so  far  as  it  goes,  and  produces  holiness  of  heart  and  life, 
and  is  imputed  to  the  believer  as  holiness,  not  instead  of 
holiness." — Lectures  to  Professing  Christians,  pp.  215, 
216. 

Mr.  Barnes  says,  "'  The  phrase  righteousness  of  Crod  is 
equivalent  to  God's  'plan  of  justifying  men' — in  regard 
to  which,  he  observes,  "It  is  not  that  his  righteousness 
becomes  ours.  This  is  not  true ;  and  there  is  no  intelli- 
gible sense  in  which  that  can  be  understood.  But  it  is 
God's  plan  for  'pardoning  sin,  and  for  treating  us  as  if  we 
had  not  committed  it." — Notes  on  the  Romans,  pp.  28, 
29.  Again  (p.  94),  in  reference  to  the  phrase,  ''Abra- 
ham believed  God,  and  it  was  counted  unto  him  for  right- 
eousness," he  remarks,  "  The  word  'it'  here,  evidently 
refers  to  the  act  of  believing.  It  does  not  refer  to  the 
righteousness  of  another — of  Gfod,  or  of  the  3Iessiah  ;  but 
the  discussion  is  solely  of  the  strong  act  of  Abraham's 
faith,  which  in  some  sense  was  counted  to  him  for  right- 
eousness. In  what  sense  this  was,  is  explained  directly 
after.  All  that  is  material  to  remark  here  is,  that  the  act 
of  Abraham,  the  strong  confidence  of  his  mind  in  the 
promises  of  God,  his  unwavering  assurance  that  what  God 
had  promised  he  would  perform,  was  reckoned  for  right- 

*  This  is  a  Socinian  objection ;  and  on  Socinian  jprinciples  it  is 
valid  ;  but  if  Christ  be  divine,  it  has  no  force. 
11* 


126  OLD    AND    NEW    THEOLOGY. 

eousness.     The  same  thing  is  more  fully  expressed,  verses 
18,  22.     When,  therefore,  it  is  said  that  the  righteous- 
ness of  Christ  is  accounted  or  imputed  to  us ;  when  it  is 
said  that  his  merits  are  transferred  and  reckoned  as  ours ; 
whatever  may  be  the  truth  of  the  doctrine,  it  cannot  be 
defended  by  this  passage  of  Scripture.     Eaith  is  always 
an  act  of  the  mind."  ....   '•'God  promises ;  the  man 
believes  ;  and  this  is  the  whole  of  it.''     It  is  manifest  that 
Mr.  Barnes  intended  in  these  passages  to  deny  that  we 
are  justified  by  the  imputation  of  Christ's  righteousness  ; 
and  with  regard  to  the  manner  in  -which  we  «re  justified, 
he  is  directly  at  variance  with  the  Confession  of  Faith. 
He  teaches  that  the  act  of  believing  is  imputed  for  right- 
eousness ;  and  the  Confession  of  Faith  declares  expressly 
to  the  contrary — "  not  by  imputing  faith  itself,  the  act 
of  believing,  or  any  other  evangelical  obedience  to  them, 
as  their  righteousness."     The  Confession  teaches,  more- 
over, that  we  are  justified  on  principles  of  law  and  justice, 
as  well  as  of  grace  and  mercy — all  of  them  harmoniously 
meeting  together  in  the  cross  of  Christ.     He  intimates 
that  legal  principles  have  nothing  to  do  in  the  matter. 
*'  It  [Rom.  i.  17,]  does  not  touch  the  question,  whether  it 
is  by  imputed  righteousness  or  not ;  it  does  not  say  that 
it  is  on  legal  principles." — Notes  on  the  Romans,  p.  28. 
This  sentence,  though  it  does  not  amount  to  a  positive 
denial,  was  designed,  we  have  no  doubt,  to  convey  this 
idea.     Similar  forms  of  expression  often  occur  in  this 
volume,  where  it  is  evident  from  the  connection,  he  means 
to  be  understood  as  denying  the  doctrine. 

The  New  Haven  divines  appear  to'  entertain  the  same 
sentiments  ;  as  the  following  from  the  Christian  Spectator 
will  serve  to  show  :  "  What  then  is  the  ground  on  which 


OLD    AND    NEW    THEOLOGY.  127 

the  penitent  sinner  is  pardoned  ?  It  is  not  that  the  suf- 
ferings of  Christ  were  of  the  nature  of  punishment ;  for 
being  innocent,  he  had  no  sins  of  his  own  to  be  punished 
for ;  and  as  he  was  a  distinct  being  from  us,  he  could  not 
be  strictly  punished  for  ours."  ....  "  It  is  not  that  by 
his  death  he  satisfied  the  penal  justice  of  God ;  for  if  he 
did,  punishment  could  not  be  equitably  inflicted  on  sin- 
ners, whether  penitent  or  not.  Nor  indeed  is  it  that  the 
righteousness  of  Christ  is  imputed  to  those  who  are  par- 
doned, either  as  a  personal  quality,  or  in  such  a  manner 
as  to  be  accounted  to  them  as  if  it  were  theirs.  Nothing 
can  be  imputed  but  that  which  is  their  own  personal 
attribute  or  act.  Hence,  though  Dr.  B.*  does  in  one 
place  speak  of  the  imputation  of  Christ's  righteousness 
to  believers,  he  obviously  refers  not  to  its  transfer,  but  to 
the  enjoyment  of  its  consequences  ;  and  he  more  com- 
monly speaks  'of  faith,'  a  personal  quality  of  the  saints, 
*  as  imputed  for  righteousness.'  What  then  is  the  ground 
on  which  forgiveness  is  bestowed  ?  It  is  simply  this,  that 
the  death  of  Christ  removed  the  difficulties  which  would 
otherwise  have  eternally  barred  the  exercise  of  pardoning 
mercy." — Christian  Spectator^  September,  1830. 

How  radically  diflferent  are  these  sentiments  from  the 
doctrine  of  justification  as  held  by  most  evangelical 
churches  !  If  they  are  scriptural,  then  multitudes  of 
Christians  have  mistaken  the  way  of  salvation.  But  if 
they  are  erroneous,  (as  we  believe  them  to  be),  then  those 

*  The  person  referred  to  here  is  not  Dr.  Beman  ;  but  if  one  will 
turn  to  Beman  on  the  Atonement,  p.  51,  he  will  perceive  that  most 
of  what  is  here  said  is  more  applicable  to  him  than  to  Dr.  Bellamy 
whom  it  is  believed  the  reviewer  has  treated  unfairly.     See  quota- 
.  tions  from  Dr.  Bellamy  in  subsequent  pages. 


128  OLD    AND    NEW    THEOLOGY. 

who  embrace  them  have  reason  to  examine  anew  the  foun- 
dation of  their  hopes  for  eternity.  The  two  systems  can 
never  be  made  to  harmonize  with  each  other.  If  the  one 
is  scriptural,  the  other  must  fall ;  and  they  involve  points 
which  affect  so  seriously  the  great  and  everlasting  inter- 
ests of  man,  that  no  one  ought  to  be  indifferent  with 
regard  to  them.  Indifference  here  would  be  highly 
criminal. 

For  the  purpose  of  showing  how  fully  the  Old  The- 
ology on  this  subject  accords  with  the  general  voice  of 
the  church  since  the  Reformation,  we  shall  introduce  a 
few  additional  quotations. 

Bates. — ''  There  are  but  two  ways  of  appearing  before 
the  righteous  and  supreme  Judge :  1.  In  sinless  obedi- 
ence  Whoever  presumes  to  appear  before  God's 

judgment-seat,  in  his  own  righteousness,  shall  be  covered 
with  confusion.  2.  By  the  righteousness  of  Christ.  This 
alone  absolves  from  the  guilt  of  sin,  saves  from  hell,  and 
can  endure  the  trial  of  God's  tribunal.  This  the  apostle 
prized  as  his  invaluable  treasure,  (Phil.  iii.  9),  in  com- 
parison of  which  all  other  things  are  but  dross  and  dung, 
*  that  I  may  be  found  in  him,  not  having  mine  own  right- 
eousness, which  is  of  the  law,  but  that  which  is  through 
the  faith  of  Christ,  the  righteousness  which  is  of  God  by 
faith.'  That  which  he  ordained  and  rewarded  in  the 
person  of  our  Redeemer,  he  cannot  but  accept.  Now 
this  righteousness  is  meritoriously  imputed  to  believers.'' 
— Harmony  of  the  Divine  Attributes,  pp.  298,  299. 

Bellamy. — "  By  the  first  covenant,  the  constitution  with 
Adam,  his  perfect  obedience  through  his  appointed  time 
of  trial,  would,  by  virtue  of  that  constitution  or  covenant, 
have  entitled  us  to  everlasting  life.     By  the  second  cove- 


OLD    AND    NEW    THEOLOGY.  129 

nant,  the  perfect  righteousness  of  Christ,  the  second 
Adam,  entitles  all  true  believers  to  everlasting  life,  by 
and  according  to  this  new  and  living  way.  A  perfect 
righteousness  was  necessary  according  to  the  law  of 
nature,  and  a  perfect  righteousness  is  insisted  upon  in 
both  covenants.  According  to  the  law  of  nature,  it  was 
to  be  performed  personally  ;  but  according  to  both  cove- 
nants it  is  appointed  to  be  performed  by  a  public  head. 
According  to  the  first  covenant  we  were  to  have  been 
interested  in  the  righteousness  of  our  public  head,  by 
virtue  of  our  union  to  him  as  his  posterity,  for  whom  he 
was  appointed  to  act.  According  to  the  second  cove- 
nant, we  are  interested  in  the  righteousness  of  Christ, 
ojir  public  head,  by  virtue  of  our  union  to  him  by  faith." 
— True  Religion  Delineated,  pp.  421,  422. 

Edwards. — "  It  is  absolutely  necessary,  that  in  order 
to  a  sinner's  being  justified,  the  righteousness  of  some 
other  should  be  reckoned  to  his  account ;  for  it  is  declared 
that  the  person  justified  is  looked  upon  as  (in  himself) 
ungodly ;  but  God  neither  will  nor  can  justify  a  person 
without  a  righteousness ;  for  justification  is  manifestly  a 
forensic  term,  as  the  word  is  used  in  Scripture,  and  a 
judicial  thing,  or  the  act  of  a  judge.  So  that  if  a  person 
should  be  justified  without  a  righteousness,  the  judgment 
would  not  be  according  to  truth.  The  sentence  of  justi- 
fication would  be  a  false  sentence,  unless  there  be  a  right- 
eousness performed,  that  is  by  the  judge  properly  looked 
upon  as  his.  To  say  that  God  does  not  justify  the  sin- 
ner without  sincere,  though  an  imperfect  obedience,  does 
not  help  the  case ;  for  an  imperfect  righteousness  before 
a  judge  is  no  righteousness."  .  .  .  .  "  God  doth  in  the 
sentence  of  justification   pronounce  a  sinner   perfectly 


130  OLD    AND    NEW    THEOLOGY. 

righteous,  or  else  lie  would  need  a  further  justification 
after  he  is  justified."  .  .  .  .  "  By  that  [Christ's]  right- 
eousness being  imjmted  to  us,  is  meant  no  other  than  this, 
that  the  righteousness  of  Christ  is  accepted  for  us,  and 
admitted  instead  of  that  perfect  inherent  righteousness 
which  ought  to  be  in  ourselves.  Christ's  perfect  obedi- 
ence shall  be  reckoned  to  our  account,  so  that  we  shall 
have  the  benefit  of  it,  as  though  we  had  performed  it  our- 
selves.    And  so  we  suppose  that  a  title  to  eternal  life  is 

given  us  as  the  reward  of  this  righteousness." 

"  There  is  the  very  same  need  of  Christ's  obeying  the  law 
in  our  stead,  in  order  to  the  reward,  as  of  his  suffering 
the  penalty  of  the  law  in  our  stead,  in  order  to  our 
escaping  the  penalty;  and  the  same  reason  why  one 
should  be  accepted  on  our  account,  as  the  other."  .... 
"  Faith  justifies,  or  gives  an  interest  in  Christ's  satisfac- 
tion and  merits,  and  a  right  to  the  benefits  procured 
thereby,  as  it  thus  makes  Christ  and  the  believer  one  in 
the  acceptance  of  the  supreme  Judge."  ....  "What 
is  real  in  the  union  between  Christ  and  his  people,  is  the 
foundation  of  what  is  legal ;  that  is,  it  is  something  really 
in  them,  and  between  them,  uniting  them,  that  is  the 
ground  of  the  suitableness  of  their  being  accounted  as 
one  by  the  judge."  .  .  .  .  "  God  does  not  give  those 
that  believe,  a  union  with  or  an  interest  in  the  Saviour 
as  a  reward  for  faith,  but  only  because  faith  is  the  soul's 
active  uniting  with  Christ,  or  is  itself  the  very  act  of  union, 
on  their  part." 

Concerning  the  opinion  of  those  who  believe  justifica- 
tion to  be  nothing  more  than  pardon,  Edwards  observes : 
*^  Some  suppose  that  nothing  more  is  intended  in  Scrip- 
ture by  justification  than  barely  the  remission  of  sins. 


OLD    AND    NEW    THEOLOGtY.  131 

If  SO,  it  is  Yery  strange,  if  we  consider  the  nature  of  the 
case ;  for  it  is  most  evident,  and  none  will  deny,  that  it 
is  with  respect  to  the  rule  or  laiv  of  God,  we  are  under, 
that  we  are  said  in  Scripture  to  be  either  justified  or  con- 
demned. Now,  what  is  it  to  justify  a  person  as  the  sub- 
ject of  a  law  or  rule,  but  to  judge  him  as  standing  right 
with  respect  to  that  rule  ?  To  justify  a  person  in  a  par- 
ticular case,  is  to.  approve  of  him  as  standing  right,  as 
subject  to  the  law  in  that  case  ;  and  to  justify  in  general, 
is  to  pass  him  in  judgment,  as  standing  right  in  a  state 
correspondent  to  the  law  or  rule  in  general ;  but  cer- 
tainly, in  order  to  a  person's  being  looked  on  as  standing 
right  with  respect  to  the  rule  in  general,  or  in  a  state 
corresponding  with  the  law  of  God,  more  is  needful  than 
not  having  the  guilt  of  sin ;  for  whatever  that  law  is, 
whether  a  new  or  an  old  one,  doubtless  something  positive 
is  needed  in  order  to  its  being  answered.  We  are  no 
more  justified  by  the  voice  of  the  law,  or  of  him  that 
judges  according  to  it,  by  a  mere  pardon  of  sin,  than 
Adam,  our  first  surety,  was  justified  by  the  law  at  the 
first  point  of  his  existence,  before  he  had  fulfilled  the 
obedience  of  the  law,  or  had  so  much  as  any  trial,  whether 
he  would  fulfil  it  or  no.  If  Adam  had  finished  his  course 
of  perfect  obedience,  he  would  have  been  justified ;  and 
certainly  his  justification  would  have  implied  souiething 
more  than  what  is  merely  negative ;  he  would  have  been 
approved  of,  as  having  fulfilled  the  righteousness  of  the 
law,  and  accordingly  would  have  been  adjudged  to  the 
reward  of  it.  So  Christ,  our  second  surety,  was  not  jus- 
tified till  he  had  done  the  work  the  Father  had  appointed 
him,  and  kept  the  Father's  commandments  through  all 
trials ;    and  then  in  his  resurrection  he  was  justified. 


132  OLD    AND    NEW    THEOLOGY. 

When  lie  had  been  put  to  death  in  the  flesh,  but  quick 
ened  by  the  Spirit,  1  Pet.  iii.  18,  then  he  that  was  mani 
fest  in  the  flesh  was  justified  in  the  Spirit,  1  Tim.  iii.  16 ; 
but  God,  when  he  justified  him  in  raising  him  from  the 
dead,  did  not  only  release  him  from  his  humiliation  for 
sin,  and  acquit  him  from  any  further  suff"ering  or  abase- 
ment for  it,  but  admitted  him  to  that  eternal  and  im- 
mortal life,  and  to  the  beginning  of  that  exaltation  that 
was  the  reward  of  what  he  had  done.  And,  indeed,  the 
justification  of  a  believer  is  no  other  than  his  being  ad- 
mitted to  communion  in  the  justification  of  this  Head  and 
Surety  of  all  believers ;  for  as  Christ  sufiered  the  punish- 
ment of  sin,  not  as  a  private  person,  but  as  our  Surety ; 
so  when,  after  this  suffering,  he  was  raised  from  the  dead, 
he  was  therein  justified,  not  as  a  private  person,  but  as 
the  Surety  and  Representative  of  all  that  should  believe 
in  him."  .  ..."  To  suppose  that  all  Christ  does  is  only 
to  make  atonement  for  us  by  suffering,  is  to  make  him  our 
Saviour  but  in  part.  It  is  to  rob  him  of  half  his  glory 
as  a  Saviour.  For  if  so,  all  that  he  does  is  to  deliver  us 
from  hell;  he  does  not  purchase  heaven  for  us." — Dis- 
course on  dust ijlcat ion. 

•  Alexander  — "  Some  have  attempted  to  evade  the  doc- 
trine [of  the  imputation  of  Christ's  righteousness]  by 
allesinsr,  that  not  the  righteousness  of  Christ  but  its  eff'ects 
are  imputed  to  us.  They  who  talk  thus  do  not  seem  to 
understand  what  they  say.  It  must  be  by  the  imputation 
of  the  righteousness  that  the  good  effects  are  derived  to 
us ;  but  the  imputation  of  the  eff'ects  themselves  cannot 
be.  To  talk  of  imputing  pardon — of  imputing  justifica- 
tion— imputing  peace,  &c.,  is  to  use  words  without  mean- 
incr.     What  we  are  inquiring  after,  is  the  reason  why 


OLD    AND    NEW    THEOLOGY.  133 

these  blessings  become  ours.  It  cannot  be  on  account  of 
our  own  righteousness,  which  is  of  the  law ;  it  must  be  on 
account  of  the  righteousness  of  Christ.  The  next  question 
is,  how  does  that  righteousness  avail  to  obtain  for  us  par- 
don and  justification  and  peace  with  God?  The  answer 
is,  by  imputation ;  that  is,  it  is  set  down  to  our  credit. 
God  accepts  it  on  our  behalf;  yea,  he  bestows  it  upon  us. 
If  there  be  any  such  thing  as  imputation,  it  must  be  of 
the  righteousness  of  Christ  itself,  and  the  benefits  con- 
nected with  salvation  flow  from  this  imputation.  We 
conclude,  therefore,  that  the  righteousness  of  Christ  can 
only  justify  us,  by  being  imputed  to  us." 

In  reply  to  the  objection  that  this  doctrine  "makes 
the  sinner's  justification  a  matter  of  justice  and  not  of 
grace,"  he  says,  "All  theories  which  suppose  that  grace 
is  exercised  at  the  expense  of  justice,  or  that  in  order  to 
the  manifestation  of  grace,  law  and  justice  must  be  sus- 
pended, labour  under  a  radical  mistake  in  theology,  which 
cannot  but  introduce  darkness  and  perplexity  into  their 
whole  system.  Indeed,  if  law  and  justice  could  have  been 
set  aside  or  suspended,  there  had  been  no  occasion  for  the 
plan  of  redemption.  The  only  reason  why  sinners  could 
not  be  saved  was,  that  the  law  and  justice  of  God  stood 
in  the  way ;  but  if,  by  a  sovereign  act,  these  obstacles 
could  have  been  removed,  salvation  might  have  been 
accomplished  without  an  atonement.  But  though  the 
Scriptures,  everywhere,  ascribe  salvation  to  grace,  free 
GRACE,  yet  they  never  teach  that  this  grace  requires  God 
to  deny  himself,  as  to  his  attribute  of  justice ;  or  that 
law  and  justice  are  at  all  interfered  with,  or  for  a  mo- 
ment suspended.  On  the  contrary,  the  idea  is  continu- 
ally kept  in  view,  that  grace  reigns  through  righteous- 
ly 


134  OLD    AND    NEW    THEOLOGY. 

ness ;  that  the  propitiation  of  Christ  is  necessary,  that 
God  may  be  just  and  yet  the  justifier  of  the  ungodly. 
Redemption  is  the  obtaining  deliverance  by  paying  a 
price ;  and  yet  redemption  and  grace,  so  far  from  being 
inconsistent,  are  constantly  united,  as  parts  of  the  same 
glorious  plan,  according  to  the  Scriptures.  '  In  whom  we 
have  redemption  through  his  blood,  the  forgiveness  of 
sins,  according  to  the  riches  of  his  grace.'  (Eph.  i.  7). 
The  only  way  in  which  it  was  possible  for  grace  to  be 
exercised,  was  by  a  plan  which  made  provision  for  the 
complete  satisfaction  of  law  and  justice.  This  was  the 
great  problem,  to  the  solution  of  which  no  finite  wisdom 
was  competent ;  but  which  the  infinite  wisdom  of  Jehovah 
has  accomplished  by  the  mission  and  sacrifice  of  his  own 
dear  Son.  What  is  objected,  therefore,  is  a  thing  essen- 
tial to  the  exercise  of  grace.  And  the  whole  appearance 
of  plausibility  in  the  objection  arises  from  not  distin- 
guishing between  God's  dealings  with  our  substitute  and 
with  us.  To  him  there  was  no  mercy  shown ;  the  whole 
process  was  in  strict  execution  of  law  and  justice.  The 
last  farthing  due,  so  to  speak,  was  exacted  of  our  Surety, 
when  he  stood  in  our  place,  under  the  holy  and  sin-aveng- 
ing law  of  God.  But  this  exercise  of  justice  towards  him 
was  the  very  thing  which  opened  the  way  for  super- 
abounding  mercy  towards  us.  And  this  cost  at  which 
the  sluices  of  grace  were  opened,  so  far  from  lessening, 
constitutes  its  riches  and  glory."  * 

*  This  extract  from  Dr.  Alexander,  and  those  which  have  been 
before  given  from  his  pen,  are  contained  in  a  short  and  able  Trea- 
tise on  Justification  by  Faith,  written  by  him  for  the  Presbyterian 
Tract  Society,  now  the  Board  of  Publication  of  the  Presbyterian 
Church.  This  tract,  and  the  other  tracts  published  by  that  Board, 
we  recommend  to  the  perusal  of  our  readers. 


OLD    AND    NEW    THEOLOGY.  135 

We  will  close  our  extracts  by  a  few  sentences  bearing 
upon  the  New-school  doctrine,  that  the  act  of  believing  is 
imputed  for  righteousness.  They  shall  be  from  the  pen 
of  Dr.  Doddridge,  in  his  note  on  the  phrase,  "imputed 
to  him  [Abraham]  for  righteousness;"  which  is  the  prin- 
cipal text  relied  upon  to  prove  the  new  doctrine.  He 
says,  "  I  think  nothing  can  be  easier  than  to  understand 
how  this  may  be  said  in  full  consistence  with  our  being 
justified  by  the  imputation  of  the  righteousness  of  Christ, 
that  is,  our  being  treated  by  God  as  righteous,  for  the 
sake  of  what  he  has  done  and  sufi"ered :  for  though  this 
be  the  meritorious  cause  of  our  acceptance  with  God,  yet 
faith  may  be  said  to  be  imputed  to  us,  in  order  to  our 
being  justified,  or  becoming  righteous  :  that  is,  according 
to  the  view  which  I  have  elsewhere  more  largely  stated, 
as  we  are  charged  as  debtors  in  the  book  of  God's  account, 
what  Christ  has  done  in  fulfilling  all  righteousness  for  us 
is  charged  as  the  grand  balance  of  the  account ;  but  that 
it  may  appear  that  we  are  according  to  the  tenor  of  the 
gospel  entitled  to  the  benefit  of  this,  it  is  also  entered  in 
the  book  of  God's  remembrance  "  that  we  are  believers  :" 
and  this  appearing,  we  are  graciously  discharged,  yea, 
rewarded,  as  if  we  ourselves  had  been  perfectly  innocent 
and  obedient." 

In  concluding  the  present  chapter,  we  again  call  the 
attention  of  the  reader  to  the  intimate  connection  which 
exists  between  the  doctrine  of  justification  and  most  of 
the  other  doctrines  which  have  been  brouo-ht  to  view  in 
the  preceding  pages.  Though  this  has  been  already 
alluded  to,  when  speaking  of  imputation  and  original  sin, 
the  truth  of  the  remark  was  not,  perhaps,  so  obvious  as 
it  must  be  now.     The  federal  headship  of  Adam,  the  im- 


136  OLD    AND    NEW    THEOLOGY. 

putation  of  the  guilt  of  his  first  sin  to  his  posterity,  ori- 
ginal sin,  the  atonement  and  justification,  are  so  closely 
connected,  that  if  we  have  incorrect  views  with  regard  to 
the  one,  we  shall  err  respecting  the  others.  The  views 
concerning  these  doctrines  which  wo  i  •.  gard  as  scriptural, 
and  which  we  have  endeavoured  to  substantiate,  so  far  as 
the  design  of  the  work  would  permit,  are  all  different 
parts  of  the  same  system.  If  one  of  them  be  materially 
modified  or  denied,  it  involves  a  similar  modification  or 
denial  of  the  whole.  "While  men  are  disputing,"  says 
Dr.  Bellamy,  "against  the  original  constitution  with 
Adam,*  they  unawares  undermine  the  second  constitu- 
tion, which  is  the  foundation  of  all  our  hopes.  Eager  to 
avoid  Adam's  first  sin,  whereby  comes  condemnation, 
they  render  of  none  effect  Christ's  righteousness,  whereby 
comes  justification."  ....  "What  remains,  therefore, 
but  deism  and  infidelity  ?" 

Truth  is  harmonious.  The  several  doctrines  of  the 
Bible,  like  the  stones  in  Solomon's  temple,  unite  together, 
without  the  use  of  an  "axe  or  hammer,"  to  pare  down 
their  edges.  But  if  one  be  rejected,  there  is  not  only  a 
vacancy  left  in  the  building,  which  no  art  or  ingenuity 
can  supply,  but  the  edifice  itself  is  in  danger  of  falling. 

*  Dr.  Bellamy's  views  concerning  God's  covenant  with  Adam, 
original  sin,  Soc,  are  the  same  with  those  of  President  Edwards ; 
from  whom  extracts  on  this  subject  have  been  given. — See  True 
Eeliyion  JJelineated,  pp.  269,  271. 


OLD    AND    NEW    THEOLOGY.  137 


CHAPTER  VII. 

HUMAN    ABILITY,    REGENERATION,    AND    THE    INFLUENCES   OF   THE 

HOLT   SPIRIT. 

That  the  fall  of  man  has  not  released  us  from  obli- 
gation to  love  and  obey  God,  is  maintained  by  all.  This, 
however,  it  is  believed,  is  perfectly  consistent  with  the 
doctrine,  that  from  our  "  original  corruption,  we  are 
utterly  indisposed,  disabled,  and  made  opposite  to  all 
good,  and  wholly  inclined  to  all  evil."  As  our  inability 
is  not  only  our  misfortune,  but  our  sin,  it  can  never 
destroy  moral  obligation.  Upon  these  points  Calvinistic 
writers  are  generally  agreed.  But  as  the  subject  is 
attended  with  difficulties,  which  some  have  been  anxious 
to  avoid,  a  distinction  has  been  resorted  to  between  na- 
tural and  mo7'al  inability ;  the  latter  of  which,  it  is  sup- 
posed, is  the  inability  under  which  the  sinner  lies;  and 
that  he  still  possesses  natu7'al  ability  to  do  his  duty. 
By  this  it  is  meant  that  he  merely  has  the  physical 
pozvers,  or  the  faculties  of  mind,  which  are  requisite  to 
enable  him  to  do  what  God  requires — but  that  his  mind 
is,  nevertheless,  wliolly  disinclined  to  that  which  is  good  ; 
or,  in  other  words,  that  he  is  morally  unable  to  exercise 
holy  affections.  This  distinction,  it  might  be  easily 
shown,  is  not  without  foundation ;  and  yet  when  applied 
to  the  subject  of  religion,  it  is  doubted  by  many,  whether 
its  use  really  solves  any  difficulties,  or  is  productive  of 
12* 


138  OLD    AND    NEW    THEOLOGY. 

any  practical  good ;  chiefly  from  the  arabiguity  of  the 
terms,  and  their  liability  to  be  misunderstood. 

It  is  no  part  of  our  present  purpose  to  discuss  this 
question.  We  have  introduced  it  in  order  to  prepare  the 
way  for  the  observation,  that  those  whose  sentiments  we 
are  now  considering,  retain  the  term  natural  in  connec- 
tion with  ability ;  and  thus  appear  to  accord  with  those 
who  are  in  the  habit  of  making  the  distinction  to  which 
we  have  referred ;  though  in  reality  they  occupy  very 
different  ground.  Though  when  they  speak  of  ability, 
they  frequently  annex  to  it  the  word  natural,  they  seldom 
speak  of  z?zability  at  all  —  but  produce  the  impression 
that  the  ability  which  they  preach  is  fully  adequate  to 
enable  the  sinner,  independently  of  divine  grace,  to  do 
all  that  God  requires. 

This  was  the  opinion  of  Dr.  Porter  concerning  Dr. 
Beecher's  preaching,  prior  to  1829.  In  a  letter  addressed 
to  him  which  has  been  published  in  various  papers,  he 
says,  "  You  exalt  one  part  of  Calvinism,  viz :  human 
agency,  so  as  virtually  to  lose  sight  of  its  correlate 
human  dependence,  and  thus  make  regeneration  so  much 
a  result  of  means  and  instrumentality,  that  the  sinner  is 
born  rather  '  of  blood  or  of  the  will  of  man  than  of 
God.'  " 

A  similar  opinion  has  been  formed  by  some  concerning 
his  "Views  in  Theology,"  published  in  1836.  Dr.  Har- 
vey says  concerning  them,  "  Dr.  Beecher's  Yieivs,  it  is 
true,  have  many  shades  and  shadows  of  orthodoxy.  The 
superstructure  looks  fair  and  imposing ;  but  the  philo- 
sophy is  Pelagian,  and  all  the  orthodoxy  in  his  '  Views* 
is  undermined  by  a  false  theory  of  moral  agency,  on 
which  the  whole  is  founded." — Harvey  on  Moral  Agency^ 


OLD    AND    NEW    THEOLOGY.  139 

p.  6.     The  following  quotations  will  show  what  founda- 
tion Dr.  Harvey  had  for  this  opinion. 

Dr.  Beecher  says  (pp.  30,  31),  "  That  man  possesses 
Bince  the  fall  the  powers  of  agency  requisite  to  obliga- 
tion, on  the  ground  of  the  'possibility  of  obedience^  is  a 
matter  of  notoriety.  Not  one  of  the  powers  of  mind 
which  constituted  ability  before  the  fall  has  been  oblite- 
rated by  that  event.  All  that  has  ever  been  conceived, 
or  that  can  now  be  conceived,  as  entering  into  the  con- 
stitution of  a  free  agent,  capable  of  choosing  life  or  death, 
or  which  did  exist  in  Adam  when  he  could  and  did  obey, 
yet  mutable,  survived  the  fall."  He  says  (pp.  31,  32), 
"  Choice,  in  its  very  nature,  implies  the  possibility  of  a 
different  or  contrary  election  to  that  which  is  made. 
There  is  always  an  alternative  to  that  which  the  mind 
decides  on  with  the  conscious  power  of  choosing  either.'* 

"  The  question  of  free  will  is  not  whether  man 

chooses — this  is  notorious,  none  deny  it ;  but  whether  his 
choice  is  free  as  opposed  to  a  fatal  necessity."  Again 
(p.  35),  "  Choice,  without  the  possibility  of  other  or  con- 
trary choice,  is  the  immemorial  doctrine  of  fatalism :" 
and  further  (p.  47),  "  This  doctrine  of  the  natural  ability 
of  choice,  commensurate  with  obligation,  has  been,  and  is, 
the  received  doctrine  of  the  universal  orthodox  church, 
from  the  primitive  age  down  to  this  day." 

The  first  of  these  propositions  speaks  without  any 
qualification  of  the  '^possibility  of  obedience,"  in  refer- 
ence to  fallen  man — and  makes  this  essential  to  obliga- 
tion. The  second  and  third  predicate  this  possibility  of 
obedience  upon  the  possession  of  a  self-determining  power 
of  the  ivill,  by  which  we  can  not  only  choose  but  alter  our 
volitions  at  pleasure.     This,   according  to  his  view,  is 


140  OLD    AND    NEW    THEOLOGY. 

essential  to  free  agency.  The  third  affirms  that  "this 
natural  ability  of  choice^''  by  which  we  understand  him 
to  mean  the  power  which  we  naturally  possess  as  free 
agents,  over  our  volitions,  "  ib  commensurate  with  obliga- 
tion.'' If  these  are  the  Ideas  which  he  Intends  to  con- 
vey, it  follows,  that  man  since  the  fall  possesses  all  the 
powers  which  are  requisite  to  enable  him  to  change  his 
sinful  volitions  for  those  which  are  holy ;  or,  to  use  the 
language  of  Dr.  Harvey,  "  that  man  possesses,  since  the 
fall,  the  powers  of  agency  requisite  to  obligation,  on  the 
ground  of  possessing  a  power  of  contrary  choice,  by 
which  he  can  recover  himself  from  perfect  sinfulness  to 
perfect  holiness." — Harvey  on  Moral  Agency,  pp.  80, 
81.  "  Natural  ability  of  choice,  commensurate  with  obli- 
gation," says  Dr.  Harvey,  "must  mean  something  more 
than  the  mere  power  of  choice  ;  it  means  natural  ability 
not  only  to  do  right,  if  one  Is  disposed,  but  natural  ability 
to  overcome  every  moral  Impediment.  In  other  words, 
it  means  natural  ability  to  overcome  moral  inability,  or 
natural  ability  which  can  produce  ability  enough  to  over- 
come moral  inability.  Thus,  as  I  have  before  had  occa- 
sion to  remark,  the  great  object  is  to  render  man,  in  his 
fallen  state,  independent  of  the  grace  of  God.  To  ac- 
complish this  purpose.  Dr.  Beecher  introduces  the  extra 
power  of  contrary  choice  as  an  addition  to  the  simple 
power  of  choice,  and  which  he  deems  sufficient  to  equal 
obligation,  and  if  so,  to  bring  the  sinner  out  of  darkness 
into  light,  to  raise  him  from  death  to  life.  Thus  Dr. 
Beecher,  in  effect,  coincides  with  Pelaglus,  who  denied  all 
moral  inability.  Pelaglus  takes  the  city  by  undermining 
and  sinking  the  wall ;  Dr.  Beecher  by  building  an  em- 
bankment which  shall  overtop  the  wall.     One  sinks  the 


OLD    AND    NEW    THEOLOGY.  141 

wall  to  the  surface,  the  otlier  raises  the  surface  to  the 
wall's  top  ;  and  in  both  cases,  the  obstacle  of  moral  in- 
ability is  annihilated." — Harvey  on  Moral  Agency^  pp. 
115,  116. 

We  have  exhibited  Dr.  Beecher's  views  in  the  above 
form,  because  the  language  of  his  several  propositions  is 
such,  that  the  sentiments  intended  to  be  conveyed  are  not 
perfectl}^  obvious  .upon  a  simple  perusal.  The  deductions 
which  we  have  made,  or  which  we  have  quoted  from  Dr. 
Harvey,  we  do  not,  of  course,  ascribe  to  Dr.  Beecher,  as 
expressing  what  he  believes — but  if  we  have  not  mistaken 
his  views,  they  appear  to  lead,  by  legitimate  consequence, 
to  these  conclusions — and  to  some  of  them  it  is  probable 
he  would  not  refuse  his  assent ;  since  it  would  be  going 
no  further  than  has  been  expressed  by  two  or  three  who 
belong  to  the  same  school. 

Says  Mr.  Duffield — "Not  much  less  deluding  are  the 
system  and  tactics  of  those  who,  fearing  to  invade  the 
province  of  the  Spirit,  are  careful  to  remind  the  sinner, 
that  he  is  utterly  unable  by  his  own  unassisted  powers 
either  to  believe  or  to  repent  to  the  saving  of  his  soul. 
It  might  as  truly  be  said,  that  he  cannot  rise  and  walk, 
by  his  own  unassisted  powers." — Duffield  on  Regenera- 
tion, p.  542. 

Mr.  Finney's  language  is  that  "  as  God  requires  men 
to  make  themselves  a  new  heart,  on  pain  of  eternal  death, 
it  is  the  strongest  possible  evidence  that  they  are  able  to 
do  it — to  say  he  has  commanded  them  to  do  it,  without 
telling  them  they  are  able,  is  consummate  trifling."  .  .  . 
"  If  the  sinner  ever  has  a  new  heart,  he  must  obey  the 

command  of  the  text,  and  make  it  himself." 

"  Sinner !    instead  of  waiting  and  praying  for  God  to 


142  OLD    AND    NEW    THEOLOGY. 

change  your  heart,  you  should  at  once  summon  up  your 
powers,  put  forth  the  effort,  and  change  the  governing 
preferences  of  your  mind.  But  here,  some  one  may  ask, 
Can  the  carnal  mind,  which  is  enmity  against  God,  change 
itself?  I  have  already  said  that  this  text  in  the  original, 
reads,  '  The  minding  of  the  flesh  is  enmity  against  God.* 
This  minding  of  the  flesh  then,  is  a  choice  or  preference 
to  gratify  the  flesh.  Now  it  is  indeed  absurd  to  say,  that 
a  choice  can  change  itself ;  but  it  is  not  absurd  to  say, 
that  the  agent  who  exercises  this  choice  can  change  it. 
The  sinner  that  minds  the  flesh,  can  change  his  mind, 
and  mind  God." — Sermons  on  Important  Subjects,  pp. 
18,  37,  38. 

This  exposition  of  the  "carnal  mind"  is  a  favourite 
one  with  writers  of  this  class.  Says  Mr.  Barnes,  "  The 
amount  of  his  [Paul's]  affirmation  is  simply,  that  the 
minding  of  the  flesh,  the  supreme  attention  to  its  dictates 
and  desires,  is  not  and  cannot  be  subject  to  the  law  of 
God.  They  are  wholly  contradictory  and  irreconcilable." 
.  .  .  .  "  But  whether  the  man  himself  might  not  obey  the 
law,  whether  he  has,  or  has  not,  ability  to  do  it,  is  a 
question  which  the  Apostle  does  not  touch,  and  on  which 
this  passage  should  not  be  adduced." — Notes  on  the  Ro- 
mans, p.  164.  In  commenting  on  the  phrase,  "  neitbor 
indeed  can  be,"  he  repeats  the  same  sentiment  concern- 
ing ability  which  is  expressed  above.  Also  in  his  expo- 
sition of  the  passage,  "  when  we  were  without  strength 
Christ  died  for  the  ungodly."  "  The  remark  of  the 
Apostle  here,"  says  he,  "has  reference  only  to  the  con- 
dition of  the  race  before  an  atonement  was  made.  It 
does  not  pertain  to  the  question  whether  man  has  strength 
to  repent  and  to  believe,  after  an  atonement  is  made, 


OLD    AND    NEW    THEOLOGY.  143 

which  is  a  very  different  inquiry."  Though  Mr.  Barnes 
expresses  himself  with  much  more  caution  than  Messrs. 
Finney  and  Duffield,  it  is  apparent  that  he  favours  their 
sentiments. 

There  is  so  striking  a  similarity  between  the  views  of 
these  men  and  those  of  Dr.  John  Taylor  of  Norwich, 
England,  a  Socinian,  that  it  will  be  appropriate  to  refer 
to  the  latter,  with  the  remarks  of  President  Edwards  upon 
them,  showing  what  he  thought  of  their  tendency.  They 
are  contained  in  his  work  on  Original  Sin.  ''  It  will  fol- 
low," says  he,  "on  our  author's  principles  [Dr.  Taylor's 
principles]  not  only  with  respect  to  infants,  but  even  adult 
persons,  that  redemption  is  needless,  and  Christ  is  dead 
in  vain.  Not  only  is  there  no  need  of  Christ's  redemp- 
tion in  order  to  deliverance  from  any  consequences  of 
Ada7ns  sin,  but  also  in  order  to  perfect  freedom  from 
personal  sin,  and  all  its  evil  consequences.  For  God  has 
made  other  sufficient  provision  for  that,  viz.,  a  sufficient 
fower  and  ability,  in  all  mankind,  to  do  all  their  duty 
and  wholly  to  avoid  sin.  Yea,  he  insists  upon  it,  that 
^  when  men  have  not  sufficient  power  to  do  their  duty, 
they  have  no  duty  to  do.  We  may  safely  and  assuredly 
conclude,  (says  he),  that  mankind  in  all  parts  of  the  world, 
have  SUFFICIENT  power  to  do  the  duty  which  God  requires 
of  them ;  and  that  he  requires  of  them  NO  more  than 
they  have  sufficient  powers  to  do.'  And  in  another 
place,  '  God  has  given  powers  equal  to  the  duty  which 
he  expects.'  And  he  expresses  a  great  dislike  at  R.  E,'s 
supposing  '  that  our  propensities  to  evil  and  temptations 
are  too  strong  to  be  effectually  and  constantly  re- 
sisted ;  or  that  we  are  unavoidably  sinful  IN  A  degree  ; 
that  our  appetites  and  passions  will  be  breaking  out,  not? 


144  OLD    AND    NEW    THEOLOGY. 

withstanding  our  everlasting  watchfulness.'  These  things 
fully  imply  that  men  have  in  their  own  natural  ability 
sufficient  means  to  avoid  sin,  and  to  be  perfectly  free  from 
it ;  and  so  from  all  the  bad  consequences  of  it.  And  if 
the  means  are  sufficient^  then  there  is  no  need  of  more ; 
and  therefore  there  is  no  need  of  Christ's  dying  in  order 
to  it.  What  Dr.  Taylor  says,  fully  implies  that  it  would 
be  unjust  in  God  to  give  mankind  being  in  such  circum- 
stances, as  that  they  would  be  more  likely  to  sin,  so  as  to 
be  exposed  to  final  misery,  than  otherwise.  Hence  then, 
without  Christ  and  his  redemption,  and  without  any  grace 
at  all,  MERE  JUSTICE  makes  sufficient  provision  for  our 
being  free  from  sin  and  misery  by  our  own  power." 

"  If  all  mankind,  in  all  parts  of  the  world,  have  suffi- 
cient power  to  do  their  whole  duty,  without  being  sinful 
in  any  degree,  then  they  have  sufficient  power  to  obtain 
righteousness  by  the  law:  and  then,  according  to  the 
apostle  Paul,  Christ  is  dead  in  vain.  Gal.  ii.  21.  '  If 
righteousness  come  by  law,  Christ  is  dead  in  vain ;' — by 
law,  or  the  rule  of  right  action,  as  our  author  explains 
the  phrase.  And  according  to  the  sense  in  which  he 
explains  this  very  place,  ^it  would  have  frustrated,  or 
rendered  useless,  the  grace  of  God,  if  Christ  died  to  ac- 
complish what  was  or  might  have  been  effected  by  law 
itself  without  his  death.'  '  So  that  it  most  clearly  follows 
from  his  own  doctrine,  that  Christ  is  dead  in  vain,  and 
the  grace  of  God  is  useless.  The  same  apostle  says.  If 
there  had  been  a  law  which  COULD  have  given  life-,  verily 
righteousness  should  have  been  by  the  law.  Gal.  iii.  21 ; 
i.  e.  (according  to  Dr.  Taylor's  own  sense),  if  there  was 
a  law,  that  man,  in  his  present  state,  had  sufficient  power 
to  fulfil.     For  Dr.  Taylor  supposes  the  reason  why  the 


OLD    AND    NEW    THEOLOGY.  145 

law  could  not  give  life,  to  be  '  not  because  it  was  weak 
in  itself,  but  through  the  weakness  of  our  flesh,  and  the 
infirmity  of  human  nature  in  the  present  state.'  But  he 
says,  '  We  are  under  a  mild  dispensation  of  grace  making 
allowance  for  our  infirmities.'  By  our  infirmities^  we 
may,  on  good  ground,  suppose  he  means  that  infirmity 
of  human  nature,  which  he  gives  as  the  reason  why  the 
law  cannot  give  life.  But  what  grace  is  there  for  making 
that  allowance  for  our  infirmities,  which  justice  itself 
(according  to  his  doctrine),  most  absolutely  requires,  as 
he  supposes  divine  justice  exactly  proportions  our  duty 
to  our  ability  ? 

"Again,  if  it  be  said,  that  although  Christ's  redemp- 
tion was  not  necessary  to  preserve  men  from  beginning 
to  sin,  and  getting  into  a  course  of  sin,  because  they  have 
sufiicient  power  in  themselves  to  avoid  it ;  yet  it  may  be 
necessary  to  deliver  men,  after  they  have  by  their  own 
folly  brought  themselves  under  the  dominion  of  evil 
appetites  and  passions ;  I  answer,  if  it  be  so,  that  men 
need  deliverance  from  those  habits  and  passions  which 
are  become  too  strong  for  them,  yet  that  deliverance,  oa 
our  author's  principles,  would  be  no  salvation  from  sin, 
For  the  exercise  of  passions  which  are  too  strong  for  us, 
and  which  we  cannot  overcome,  is  necessary :  and  he 
strongly  urges,  that  a  necessary  evil  can  be  no  moral 
evil.  It  is  true  it  is  the  effect  of  evil,  as  it  is  the  effect 
of  a  bad  practice,  while  the  man  had  power  to  have 
avoided  it.  But  then,  according  to  Dr.  Taylor,  that  evil 
cause  alone  is  sin ;  for  he  expressly  says,  '  the  cause  of 
every  effect  is  alone  chargeable  with  the  effect  it  pro- 
duceth,  or  which  proceedeth  from  it.'  And  as  to  that 
sin  which  was  the  cause,  the  man  needed  no  Saviour  from 
13 


146  OLD    AND    NEW    THEOLOGY. 

that,  having  had  sufficient  poiver  in  himself  to  have 
avoided  it.  So  that  it  follows  by  our  author's  scheme, 
that  none  of  mankind,  neither  infants  nor  adult  persons, 
neither  the  more  nor  less  vicious,  neither  Jews  nor  Gen- 
tiles, neither  heathens  nor  Christians,  ever  did  or  ever 
could  stand  in  any  need  of  a  Saviour ;  and  that  with 
respect  to  all,  the  truth  is,  Christ  is  dead  in  vain. 

"  If  any  should  say,  although  all  mankind  in  all  ages 
have  sufficient  ability  to  do  their  whole  duty,  and  so  may 
by  their  own  power  enjoy  perfect  freedom  from  sin,  yet 
God  foresaw  that  they  would  sin,  and  that  after  they  had 
sinned  they  would  need  Christ's  death ;  I  answer,  it  is 
plain,  by  what  the  apostle  says  in  those  places  which  were 
just  now  mentioned,  (Gal.  ii.  21,  and  iii.  21),  that  God 
would  have  esteemed  it  needless  to  give  his  Son  to  die  for 
men,  unless  there  had  been  a  prior  impossibility  of  their 
having  righteousness  by  any  law ;  and  that  if  there  had 
been  a  law  which  could  have  given  life,  this  other  way 
by  the  death  of  Christ  would  not  have  been  provided. 
And  this  appears  agreeable  to  our  author's  own  sense  of 
things,  by  his  words  which  have  been  cited,  wherein  he 
says,  '  It  would  have  frustrated  or  rendered  useless 
the  grace  of  God,  if  Christ  died  to  accomplish  what  was 
or  MIGHT  HAVE  BEEN  effected  by  law  itself,  -without  his 
death.'  " 

The  new  views  concerning  human  ability  have  an  exact 
counterpart  in  the  description  which  is  given  by  different 
writers  of  this  school,  of  the  work  of  regeneration,  and 
the  agency  of  the  Holy  Spirit.  According  to  them, 
regeneration  consists  in  the  mere  change  of  the  govern- 
ing purpose  or  preference  of  the  soul — by  which  the  sin- 
ner renounces  the  world  as  the  supreme  object  of  pursuit, 


OLD    AND    NEW    THEOLOGY.  147 

and  makes  choice  of  God  and  heavenly  things.  Prompted 
by  self-love,  or  in  other  words,  by  a  constitutional  desire 
for  happiness,  which  is  neither  sinful  nor  holy,  and  the 
selfish  principle  in  his  heart  being  suspended,  he  enters 
upon  a  serious  consideration  and  comparison  of  the  vari- 
ous objects  of  happiness,  until  he  discovers  the  infinite 
superiority  of  God  and  divine  things  to  every  other  object. 
Then,  by  "  desperate  efibrts,"  he  fixes  his  heart  upon 
them,  and  thus  becomes  a  Christian.  The  part  which 
the  Holy  Spirit  performs  in  the  work  is,  to  present  truth 
powerfully  before  the  mind  in  the  form  of  motives,  like 
an  advocate  arguing  a  cause  before  a  jury ;  or  as  one  man 
influences  and  persuades  another  in  the  common  affairs 
of  life  ;  though  with  infinitely  greater  skill  and  force  than 
can  be  employed  by  any  human  agent.  His  attention  is 
thus  arrested — he  revolves  in  his  mind  the  points  at  issue 
— and  at  length  being  convinced  where  his  true  interest 
lies,  he  is  prevailed  upon -by  the  moral  suasion  of  the 
Spirit,  to  change  the  governing  purpose  or  preference  of 
his  mind,  and  to  choose  God  as  his  supreme  portion. 

The  language  of  Dr.  Taylor  is  as  follows:  "We  pro- 
ceed to  say  then,  that  before  the  act  of  the  will  or  heart 
in  which  the  sinner  first  prefers  God  to  any  other  object, 
the  object  of  the  preference  must  be  viewed  or  estimated 
as  the  greatest  good.  Before  the  object  can  be  viewed 
as  the  greatest  good,  it  must  be  compared  with  other 
objects,  as  both  are  sources  or  means  of  good.  Before 
this  act  of  comparing,  there  must  be  an  act  dictated  not 
by  selfishness  but  self-love,  in  which  the  mind  determines 
to  direct  its  thoughts  to  the  objects  for  the  sake  of  con- 
sidering  their   relative   value,   of  forming   a  judgment 


148  OLD    AND    NEW    THEOLOGY. 

respecting  it,  and  of  choosing  one  or  the  other  as  the 
chief  good." — Christian  Spectator,  1829,  pp.  19,  20. 

*'  Divine  truth  does  not  become  a  means  to  this  end, 
until  the  selfish  principle  so  long  cherished  in  the  heart 
is  suspended ;  and  the  mind  is  left  to  the  control  of  that 
constitutional  desire  of  happiness  which  is  an  original 
principle  of  our  nature.  Then  it  is,  we  apprehend,  that^ 
God  and  the  world  are  contemplated  by  the  mind  as 
objects  of  choice,  substantially  as  they  would  be  by  a 
being  who  had  just  entered  on  existence,  and  who  was 
called  upon  for  the  first  time  to  select  the  one  or  the 
other  as  his  supreme  good." — Christian  Spectator,  1829, 
p.  210. 

"  Now  we  readily  concede  that  sinners  never  use  the 
means  of  regeneration  with  a  holy  heart,  nor  with  an 
unholy  or  sinful  heart.  But  does  it  therefore  follow  that 
they  never  use  them  with  any  heart  at  all  ?  What  is 
that  heart  with  which  God  in  his  law  requires  sinners  to 
love  him  ?  Surely  not  a  heart  which  is  holy  before  they 
love  him.  Still  less  with  a  sinful  heart;  and  yet  he 
requires  them  to  love  him  with  some  heart,  even  their 
heart.  Is  this  no  heart  at  all  ?  We  think  on  the  con- 
trary it  is  a  real  heart,  a  heart  with  which  sinners  can 
love  God,  even  without  the  grace  of  the  Spirit,  and  cer- 
tainly with  it." — Christian  Spectator,  1830,  pp.  149,  150. 

Concerning  the  nature  of  the  Spirit's  agency,  we 
believe  Dr.  Taylor  has  not  published  his  views.  But  the 
author  of  ''  Letters  on  the  New  Haven  Theology"  informs 
us  that  his  sentiments  correspond  with  those  of  Mr. 
rinney. 

Mr.  Finney  says,  "  The  Spirit  pours  the  expostulation 
home  with  such  power,  that  the  sinner  turns.     Now,  in 


OLD    AND    NEW    THEOLOGY.  149 

speaking  of  this  change,  it  is  perfectly  proper  to  say, 
that  the  Spirit  turned  him,  just  as  you  would  say  of  a 
man  who  had  persuaded  another  to  change  his  mind  on 
the  subject  of  politics,  that  he  had  converted  hira  and 

brought  him  over." "  He  does  not  act  by  direct 

physical  contact  upon  the  mind,  but  he  uses  the  truth  as 
his  sword  to  pierce  the  sinner ;  and  the  motives  presented 
in  the  gospel  are.  the  instruments  he  uses  to  change  the 
sinner's  heart.  Some  have  doubted  this,  and  supposed 
that  it  is  equivalent  to  denying  the  Spirit's  agency  alto- 
gether to  maintain  that  he  converts  sinners  by  motives. 
Others  have  denied  the  possibility  of  changing  the  heart 
by  motives.  But  did  not  the  serpent  change  Adam's 
heart  by  motives  ?  and  cannot  the  Spirit  of  God  with 
infinitely  higher  motives  exert  as  great  power  over  mind 

as  he  can?" ''From  these  remarks  it  is  easy  to 

answer  the  question  sometimes  put  by  individuals  who 
seem  to  be  entirely  in  the  dark  on  this  subject,  whether 
in  converting  the  soul  the  Spirit  acts  directly  on  the 
mind,  or  on  the  truth.  This  is  the  same  nonsense  as  if 
you  should  ask  w^hether  an  earthly  advocate  who  had 
gained  his  cause,  did  it  by  acting  directly  and  physically 

on  the  jury  or  on  his  argument." "  The  power 

which  God  exerts  in  the  conversion  of  a  soul  is  moral 
power ;  it  is  that  kind  of  power  by  which  a  statesman 
sways  the  mind  of  a  senate ;  or  by  which  an  advocate 
moves  and  bows  the  heart  of  a  jury." — Sermons  on  Im- 
portant Subjects,  pp.  21,  27,  28,  30. 

As  to  what  regeneration  consists  in,  Mr.  Finney  ob- 
serves :   "A  change  of  heart,  then,  consists  in  changing 
the  controlling  preference  of  the  mind  in  regard  to  the 
end  of  pursuit.     The  selfish  heart  is  a  preference  of  self- 
13* 


150  OLD    AND    NEW    THEOLOGY. 

interest  to  the  glory  of  God  and  the  interests  of  his  king- 
dom. A  new  heart  consists  in  a  preference  of  the  glory 
of  God  and  the  interests  of  his  kingdom  to   one's  own 

happiness." ''It  is  a  change  in  the  choice  of  a 

Swpreme  Ruler.'' — Ihid.  pp.  9,  10.  In  describing  the 
process  by  which  the  sinner  effects  this  change,  he  occu- 
pies nearly  a  whole  sermon,  which  we  cannot,  of  course, 
with  propriety,  transfer  to  these  pages.  It  corresponds 
substantially  with  the  views  already  given  from  Dr. 
Taylor. 

Mr.  Duffield's  account  of  regeneration  is  as  follows : 
"It  is  going  altogether  beyond  the  analogy*in  the  case, 
to  assert  that  there  is  in  regeneration  the  injection,  infu- 
sion, or  implantation,  or  creation  of  a  new  principle  of 

spiritual  life.'' "Whenever  the  Spirit  of  God 

excites  and  secures  in  the  mind  and  heart  of  man  those 
acts  and  emotions  which  are  appropriate  to  his  rational 
soul,  i.  e.  when  they  are  directed  to  God,  as  his  supreme 
good  and  chief  end,  he  is  renewed,  regenerated,  born 
again." — Work  on  Regeneration,  pp.  202,  203,  204. 
But  how  does  the  Spirit  produce  this  result  ?  According 
to  him  it  is  done  by  moral  suasion.  He  has  two  whole 
chapters,  occupying  thirty-five  pages,  entitled  "  The 
Moral  Suasion  of  the  Spirit."  In  one  of  these  he  illus- 
trates his  views  of  the  nature  of  the  Spirit's  agency  by 
the  power  of  persuasion  exerted  by  one  man  over  another, 
and  the  greater  success  which  a  man  of  "practical  know- 
ledge and  tact  and  particular  acquaintance  with  disposi- 
tions," &c.,  has  above  one  who  is  less  skilful.  "  Shall  we 
suppose,  (says  he),  that  God  cannot  do  with  sinners  in 
reference  to  himself  what  one  man  has  done  with  another  ? 
— that  a  physical  efiiciency  is  necessary  to  make  the  sin- 


OLD    AND    NEW    THEOLOGY.  151 

Tier  willing  to  confide  in  him  and  repent  of  his  rebellion  ? 
To  suppose  this,  is  in  fact  to  attribute  a  moral  influence 
to  a  man  more  potent  than  that  ^vhich,  in  such  a  case,  it 
would  be  requisite  God  should  exert !  It  would  in  effect 
be  to  say  that  man  can  subdue  Jiis  foe,  and  by  an  appro- 
priate moral  influence  convert  him  into  a  friend ;  but  that 
God  cannot  convert  his  enemy,  and  bring  him  to  believe, 
except  he  puts  forth  his  physical  power  and  literally 
creates  him  over  again."     pp.  492,  493.* 

During  the  progress  of  the  discussion  concerning  the 
New  Theology,  it  was  alleged  by  some,  by  way  of  objec- 
tion to  the  new  theory,  that  it  involved  the  principle  that 
regeneration  is  not  an  instantaneous  but  a  gradual  work. 

This  allegation,  so  far  as  we  recollect,  was  for  a  time 
neither  admitted  nor  denied.  But  recently  the  doctrine 
oi  gradual  regeneration  has  been  avowed.  Mr.  Gilbert,f 
of  Wilmington,  Delaware,  published  in  the  P hiladelj^hian, 
in  1833,  a  number  of  communications  on  this  subject ; 
which  were  afterwards  revised  and  enlarged,  and  in  1836, 
at  the  "earnest  request"  of  the  "members  of  the  Min- 
isters' Meeting  of  New  Castle  County,  Delaware,"  were 

*  This  power  of  moral  suasion  is  the  kind  of  influence  referred 
to  by  a  certain  preacher,  who  said,  "If  I  were  as  eloquent  as  the 
Holy  Ghost,  I  could  convert  sinners  as  well  as  He."  In  the  Na- 
tional Preacher  for  February,  1832,  a  sermon  furnished  by  Dr.  GriflBn 
commences  by  quoting  the  above  remark.  It  being  attributed  by 
some  to  a  Presbyterian  minister  of  our  acquaintance,  we  asked  him 
whether  he  had  ever  used  this  expression.  He  replied  that  he  had, 
and  vindicated  its  correctness;  though  he  said  it  did  not  appear  in 
the  connection  in  which  he  used  it,  as  it  does  when  standing  by 
itself. 

f  In  the  organization  of  the  New-school  General  Assembly  in 
May,  1838,  Mr.  Gilbert  was  chosen  permanent  clerk. 


152  OLD    AND    NEW    THEOLOGY. 

published  in  a  pamphlet  form,  under  the  title  of  "  Moral 
Suasion;  or  Regeneration  not  a  Miracle,"  &c.  It  is 
dedicated  to  the  members  of  the  Ministers'  Meeting,  and 
to  the  elders  of  the  churches  under  their  pastoral  charge. 
These  facts  appear  to  show  that  Mr.  Gilbert's  views 
accord  with  the  sentiments  of  the  other  ministers  with 
whom  he  is  associated  in  that  State,  and  that  they  desire 
to  have  them  prevail  throughout  their  churches. 

Mr.  Gilbert  affirms  that  "  the  Bible  knows  no  instan- 
taneous regeneration ;  this  is  a  refinement  of  theological 
philosophers.  Being  born  again,  and  changing  the  heart 
of  stone  to  a  heart  of  flesh,  is  a  gradual  process  ;  although 
under  some  circumstances  it  may  be  a  very  sliort  one.'* 
The  remark  of  Dr.  Griffin,  that  "  motives  can  never 
change  an  unholy  temper,'"  &c.  he  calls  "strange  philo- 
sophy ;  flying  not  only  in  the  face  of  Scripture,  but  of 
every  day  matters  of  fact."  "How  often,"  (says  he), 
"  do  we  see  enmity  to  a  neighbour,  corrected,  moderated, 
.subdued  and  turned  to  love,  by  proper  motives  presented 
to  the  mind  ?  And  enmity  to  God  is  restrained  and  sub- 
dued in  the  same  manner."  These  motives,  he  maintains, 
are  presented  in  the  latter  case  by  the  Holy  Spirit,  who 
convicts,  converts,  and  sanctifies,  "  by  the  influence  of 
truth  presented  to  the  mind,  and  in  no  other  way."  In 
one  place,  he  says ;  "  Regeneration  cannot  he  wrought 
without  the  truth.  It  is  in  view  of  the  truth,  through 
the  truth,  and  by  the  truth,  the  soul  is  convicted,  con- 
verted, and  sanctified  from  beginning  to  end." 

To  illustrate  his  views  he  has  furnished  a  diagram 
consisting  of  an  arc  of  a  circle,  in  the  centre  of  which 
he  has  placed  the  Holy  Spirit.     From  this  centre  are 


OLD    AND    NEW    THEOLOGY.  153 

drawn  straight  lines  to  various  points  in  the  arc,  repre- 
senting truth  as  employed  by  the  Spirit.  A  sinner 
pursuing  his  way  to  hell  is  represented  as  being  met  by 
one  of  these  lines,  through  the  influence  of  which  he 
is  persuaded  to  diverge  a  little  from  the  path  he  was 
pursuing,  and  proceeding  at  an  angle  of  about  forty-five 
degrees,  he  passes  gradually  through  the  several  steps 
of  conviction,  regeneration,  and  sanctification,  describ- 
ing in  his  progress  the  arc  of  the  circle ;  until  arriving 
at  a  point  directly  opposite  from  where  he  started,  he 
becomes  perfect  and  ascends  to  heaven. 

That  the  reader  may  see  for  himself  this  new  and 
improved  method  of  regeneration  by  attraction,  we 
will  give  the  diagram  with  the  author's  explanation.* 
We  ought  to  remark,  however,  that  he  uses  the  terms 
conviction  and  sanctification  in  accommodation  to  the 
views  and  language  of  others.  According  to  his  own 
views  the  whole  process  from  beginning  to  end  be- 
longs to  the  work  of  regeneration.  ''  By  regenera- 
tion,'^ says  he,  "is  understood  the  divine  agency  in 
the  whole  process  of  a  sinner's  conviction  and  conver- 
sion ;  but  in  this  discussion  I  use  it  as  it  is  used  by 
Dr.  Griffin,  Mr.  Smith  and  others,  in  the  restricted 
sense  as  distinguished  from  previous  conviction  and  sub- 
sequent sanctification."  "It  [the  Bible]  knows  of  no 
regeneration  as  distinct  from  conviction  and  the  begin- 
ning of  sanctification." 

*  As  a  matter  of  taste  we  would  exclude  this  diagram  from  our 
pages — but  other  considerations  which  we  regard  as  paramount, 
induce  us  to  insert  it. 


154 


OLD    AND    NEW    THEOLOGY. 


THE  AUTHOR  S  EXPLANATION. 


*' Let  the  semicircle,  ABC,  represent  the  sinner's 
course  from  sin  to  holiness.  Let  D  E  represent  the  road 
to  hell,  in  which  the  impenitent  sinner  is  found  by  the 
Holy  Spirit,  and  influenced  at  the  point  A  by  a  new 
presentation  of  truth,  to  stop  and  turn  gradually  from 
his  downward  course,  through  the  curve  of  conviction, 
towards  the  point  B,  when  his  conviction  becoming  perfect 
and  irresistible,  he  yields  and  turns  from  his  downward 
course,  through  the  process  of  sanctification,  until  at  0 
(or  at  death),  becoming  perfect,  he  flies  off",  if  you  please, 
in  a  tangent  to  heaven.  Till  he  reaches  the  point  B, 
though  turning  gradually  from  the  more  direct  road  to 
hell,  he  is  still  in  the  downward  course,  and  should  the 
Spirit  let  go  of  him,  at  any  point,  he  flies  ofi",  by  his  own 
centrifugal  force,  in  a  moment  towards  perdition.     The 


OLD    AND    NEW    THEOLOGY.  155 

point  B  represents  what  these  writers  call    '  Regenera- 
tion: " 

"  The  Hoi  J  Spirit,  like  the  sun  in  the  centre,  is  the 
source  of  all  right  motion ;  and  the  power  by  which  he 
attracts  or  influences  the  sinner,  is  the  power  of  truth, 
or  moral  motive ;  by  which  the  moral  agent  is  checked 
at  A,  and  moved  and  controlled  through  the  whole  course 
from  A  to  C.  It  is  understood,  of  course,  that  the  whole 
process  may  be  longer  or  shorter,  according  to  circum- 
stances ;  may  begin  and  be  perfected,  as  with  the  thief 
on  the  cross,  in  a  single  day ;  or  as  in  the  case  of  Me- 
thuselah, may  occupy  nine  hundred  or  one  thousand  years. 
Conviction,  also,  may  be  short,  and  sanctification  long, 
or  the  reverse.  But  conviction  must,  from  the  nature  of 
the  case,  precede  regeneration,  or  regeneration  cannot  be 
a  rational  change.  A  physical  change  may  take  place 
without  conviction ;  but  physical  regeneration  is  a  thing 
which  I  cannot  comprehend,  any  more  than  physical  con- 
viction or  physical  sanctification.  The  doctrine  of  the 
moral  suasionists  is,  that  the  influence  which  convicts, 
also  regenerates  and  sanctifies;  that  the  same  power 
which  moves  the  sinner  from  A  to  B,  moves  him  through 
the  point  B  and  along  the  line  to  C ;  and  that  the  whole 
change  is  wrought  through  appropriate  means,  without  a 
miracle,  by  the  Holy  Spirit." 

Agreeably  to  these  ideas  of  gradual  progress  from  the 
first  point  to  the  last,  he  says  :  "  There  is  very  little  dis- 
tinction between  the  last  degree  of  sin  and  the  lowest 
degree  of  holiness ;  between  the  last  exercise  of  an  un- 
converted and  the  first  of  a  converted  man ;  between  the 
last  feeble  struggle  of  selfishness  and  the  first  feeble  ex- 
ercise of  love."  .  .  *'  There  is  a  great  difference  between 


156  OLD    AND    NEW    THEOLOGY. 

supreme  selfishness  and  supreme  love  in  their  extremes  ; 
but  between  the  last  feeble  influence  of  selfishness  and 
the  first  feeble  exercise  of  love  to  Grod,  the  difference  is 
as  imperceptible,  as  between  the  adjacent  sides  of  the 
equatorial  line.''  .  .  "  The  point  B  on  the  diagram  repre- 
sents the  transition  line.  And  it  may  be  asked,  Is  it  not 
an  important  one  ?  I  answer.  Yes.  Important  on  many 
accounts,  but  not  because  of  any  special  influence  used 
then,  but  like  the  equator,  as  a  measure  of  relative  pro- 
gress, and  as  the  era  of  a  great  change  in  all  our  moral 
relations  and  circumstances.  Like  the  equatorial  line, 
however,  it  is  in  itself  oi  no  consequence  at  all." 

If  this  were  not  a  subject  too  serious  for  ridicule,  Mr. 
Gilbert  might  be  successfully  assailed  by  this  weapon. 
He  has  fairly  exposed  himself  to  this  mode  of  attack. 
But  if  we  possessed  a  talent  for  the  humorous,  and  were 
disposed  to  indulge  in  it,  we  feel  too  much  shocked  at  his 
method  of  illustration  to  treat  it  with  ridicule.  He  ap- 
pears to  have  felt  himself,  that  he  would  run  ''  the  risk 
of  being  counted  very  presumptuous  ;"  and  we  doubt  not 
he  was  correct  in  his  apprehensions.  A  majority  of  his 
readers,  it  seems  to  us,  (unless  they  belong  to  a  particu- 
lar class)  will  feel  that  he  has  "  trodden  on  holy  ground," 
without  "  taking  his  shoes  from  off  his  feet ;"  that  he  has 
*'put  forth  his  hand  and  touched  ihe  ark  of  God,"  with- 
out "sanctifying  himself;"  or,  in  other  words,  that  he 
has  so  presented  the  subject,  as  to  make  him  appear  almost 
profane. 

This  very  circumstance,  however,  serves  to  show  the 
fallacy  of  these  new  doctrines.  Mr.  Gilbert  uses  no 
irreverent  language — he  does  not  caricature  the  New  The- 
ology.     The   views   expressed   by  different   writers   as 


OLD    AND    NEW    THEOLOGY.  157 

quoted  in  the  present  chapter,  if  carried  out  to  their  full 
extent,  and  illustrated  by  a  diagram,  could  not  perhaps 
be  exhibited  more  accurately  than  by  that  which  has  been 
presented.  But  a  description  given  in  words,  which  have 
often  an  equivocal  or  doubtful  import,  produces  not  only 
a  less  vivid,  but  a  less  accurate  impression  than  that  which 
is  made  by  a  figure  faithfully  drawn  and  presented  to  the 
eye.  This  remark  is  true  not  only  in  reference  to  land- 
scapes, &c.,  but  to  a  certain  extent  in  regard  to  moral 
and  religious  truth.  Mr.  Gilbert  has  shown  by  his  dia- 
gram, that  it  is  capable  of  being  employed  in  the  present 
instance ;  and  possibly  it  may  be  of  service  to  the  cause 
of  truth,  by  showing  in  a  more  striking  manner  than  can 
be  exhibited  by  quoting  their  language,  the  dangerous 
extremes  to  which  those  men  are  tending.  Give  not  only 
words  but  visibility  to  their  doctrines — let  them  be  seen 
as  well  as  heard — and  they  will  arouse  the  feelings  of 
many  who  have  not  before  been  seriously  alarmed. 


CHAPTER  VIII. 

HUMAN    ABILITY,    REGENERATION,    ETC.,  CONTINUED    FROM    THE   PRE- 
CEDING CHAPTER. 

We  observed  in  chapter  fifth  that  the  New  Theology 
concerning  the  nature  of  sin  and  holiness,  viz. :  that 
they  consist  in  acts,  involves  a  new  theory  of  regenera- 
tion. What  this  theory  is  may  be  learned  from  the  state- 
ments made  in  the  preceding  chapter.  It  is  the  follow- 
14 


158  OLD    AND    NEW    THEOLOGY. 

ing:  That  in  regeneration  no  princij:)^  of  holiness  is 
implanted  in  the  soul,  prior  to  the  exercise  of  holy  acts, 
from  which  principle,  or  "moral  state  of  the  soul,"  those 
acts  proceed :  but  that  the  whole  change  consists  in  the 
acts  of  the  soul  itself ;  which  from  having  been  sinful  now 
become  holy.  A  previous  holy  relish  or  taste,  which, 
according  to  the  old  doctrine,  is  essential  in  order  to  give 
to  these  acts  a  holy  character,  is  regarded  by  these  new 
system-makers,  as  unphilosophical  and  absurd ;  involving 
what  they  term  physical  regeneration,  passivity,  &c. 

If  by  physical  regeneration  is  meant  a  mechanical 
change  in  the  substance  of  the  soul,  it  forms  no  part  of 
the  Old  Theology.  But  if  it  mean  a  direct  agency  of 
the  Spirit  upon  the  soul,  by  which  its  faculties  are  so 
renewed,  that  it  receives  the  principles  of  a  new  and 
holy  life,  and  therefore  may  be  properly  said  to  possess 
a  new  nature,  it  is  what  we  understand  to  be  the  true 
doctrine.  "  The  scriptural  representations  of  conversion, 
(says  President  Edwards),  strongly  imply  and  signify  a 
change  of  nature ;  such  as  being  born  again ;  becoming 
new  creatures ;  rising  from  the  dead ;  being  renewed  in 
the  spirit  of  the  mind ;  dying  to  sin,  and  living  to  right- 
eousness ;  putting  off  the  old  man  and  putting  on  the 
new  man ;  being  ingrafted  into  a  new  stock ;  having  a 
divine  seed  implanted  in  the  heart ;  being  made  partakers 

of  the  divine  nature,"  &c "He  [God]  gives  his 

Spirit  to  be  united  to  the  faculties  of  the  soul  and  to 
dwell  there  as  a  principle  of  spiritual  life  and  activity. 
He  not  only  actuates  the  soul,  but  he  abides  in  it.  The 
mind  thus  endued  with  grace  is  possessed  of  a  new  na- 
ture."— Edivards  on  the  Affections. 

That  the  soul  is  passive  in  regeneration,  is  the  doctrine 


OLD    AND    NEW    THEOLOGY.  159 

of  our  standards — and  it  necessarily  results  from  the 
preceding  view  concerning  the  nature  of  the  change.  In 
the  chapter  on  Effectual  Calling,  both  are  presented  in 
connection  with  each  other.  The  change  itself  is  de- 
clared to  consist  in  "  enlightening  the  minds  [the  minds 
of  those  whom  he  effectually  calls]  spiritually  and  savingly, 
to  understand  the  things  of  God,  taking  away  their  heart 
of  stone,  and  giving  unto  them  a  heart  of  flesh ;  renew- 
ing their  wills,"  &c.  It  is  then  added,  in  the  next  section, 
*'  This  effectual  call  is  of  God's  free  and  special  grace 
alone,  not  from  anything  at  all  foreseen  in  man,  who  is 
altogether  passive  therein,  until  being  quickened  and 
renewed  by  the  Holy  Spirit,"  &c.  The  former  part  of 
this  quotation  exhibits  the  implantation  of  a  holy  prin- 
ciple, or  the  change  of  our  natures,  by  conferring  spirit- 
ual illumination,  removing  the  heart  of  stone  and  giving 
a  heart  of  flesh,  and  by  renewing  the  will.  The  latter 
affirms  that  this  new  nature  was  not  imparted  to  us  by 
our  own  agency,  but  by  God,  who  works  upon  us  by  his 
Holy  Spirit,  to  quicken  and  renew  us ;  and  that  we  must 
of  course,  as  to  this  particular  point  in  the  history  of  the 
change,  be  the  passive  recipients  of  divine  grace — not 
bringing  it  about  by  our  own  acts,  but  being  acted  upon 
by  the  renovating  power  of  God. 

This  doctrine,  however,  does  not  imply  that  we  are  not 
to  be  active  beforehand  in  the  diligent  use  of  the  means 
of  grace — nor  that  we  are  inactive  at  the  time,  with 
respect  to  the  effects  of  the  change.  Simultaneously 
with  this  change,  and  as  the  immediate  consequence  of  it, 
the  sinner  is  "  persuaded  and  enabled  to  embrace  Jesus 
Christ,  as  he  is  freely  offered  to  him  in  the  gospel."  In 
this  he  is  not  passive,  but  active.     When  God  "  by  his 


160  OLD    AND    NEW    THEOLOGY. 

almighty  power  determines  the  sinner  to  that  which  is 
good,"  or  in  other  words,  gives  him  an  apprehension  of 
the  excellence  of  divine  things,  and  of  the  all-sufficiency 
of  Christ  as  his  Saviour,  and  thus  "  effectually  draws" 
him  to  Christ,  he  comes,  not  reluctantly,  but  "  most 
freely,  being  made  willing  by  his  grace."  Regeneration, 
or  the  implanting  of  a  holy  principle,  is  the  cause ;  and 
our  conversion,  or  turning  to  God,  is  the  effect.  In  the 
former  we  are  passive,  in  the  latter  active.  Though  in 
the  order  of  time  they  are  simultaneous,  in  the  order  of 
nature  the  former  is  the  antecedent,  the  latter  the  con- 
sequent ;  just  as  breathing,  though  simultaneous  with  the 
existence  of  life,  is  nevertheless  the  effect  of  it,  and 
would  never  occur,  unless  life  had  been  previously  com- 
municated. 

Dr.  Cox,  who  does  not  appear  to  have  adopted  all  the 
principles  of  the  New  Theology,  has  expressed  himself 
on  the  subject  of  regeneration  in  a  manner  very  different 
from  what  has  been  customary  among  Calvinistic  writers.* 
To  the  doctrine  that  "  God  creates  or  inserts  some  holy 
principle  in  us,  which  constitutes  regeneration,  and  in 
which  we  are  entirely  passive,  but  that  thereafter  we 
actively  do  our  duty,"  he  strongly  objects,  and  says  "it 
can  command  the  confidence  of  no  well  disciplined  mind." 
He  adds,  it  is  true,  "till  we  have  both  a  definition  of 
what  is  meant  by  holy  principle,  and  a  demonstration  of 

*  Since  the  publication  of  the  first  edition,  Dr.  Cox  has  pub- 
lished a  series  of  numbers  in  the  New  York  Evangelist,  entitled 
"The  Hexagon,"  in  which  he  has  discussed  at  length  several  im- 
portant points  of  difference  between  the  Old  and  New  Schools,  and 
sided  strongly  with  the  latter,  maintaining  their  particular  views 
of  doctrine. 


OLD    AND    NEW    THEOLOGY.  161 

its  existence,"  &c. ;  and  he  wishes  to  have  it  understood 
that  he  does  not  object  to  its  use,  if  explained  in  a  par- 
ticular way — but  the  doctrine,  as  it  has  been  commonly 
received,  he  does  not  embrace.  In  his  letter  to  the  con- 
ductors of  the  Biblical  Repertory,  in  reply  to  their  re- 
view of  his  sermon,  he  asks,  "  Is  not  a  Christian  active 
in  all  his  moral  relations,  — in  believing  and  obeying 
God  ?  Certainly  active  in  the  total  progress  of  religion, 
in  the  soul  and  life  :  then  why  not  also  in  its  rise  ?  If 
active  progressively,  then  why  not  initially  too  ?  If 
active  in  the  work  of  sanctification,  why  not  in  the  whole 
of  it,  in  its  commencement  as  well  as  its  continuance ;  in 
regeneration  as  well  as  sanctification  ?  How  is  a  man 
regenerated,  but  as  he  believes  and  obeys  the  gospel? 
Is  he  regenerated  before  he  does  this  ?  Is  he  more  de- 
pendent in  regeneration  one  whit  than  in  sanctification  ?" 
What  he  terms  the  passivity  doctrine,  or  the  doctrine  of 
passive  regeneration,  he  explicitly  and  freely  disavows. 

The  remarks  of  the  editors  of  the  Repertory,  in  their 
review  of  his  sermon,  are  so  much  in  point,  that  we  shall 
transcribe  a  paragraph  of  considerable  length,  in  the 
place  of  any  further  observations  of  ours  upon  this  subject. 

"As  to  the  point  which  Dr.  Cox  thinks  so  '  intrinsically 
absurd,'  and  about  which  he  says  so  much,  whether  a  man 
is  passive  in  regeneration,  it  will  be  seen  that,  for  its  own 
sake,  it  does  not  merit  a  moment's  discussion.  It  depends 
entirely  on  the  previous  question.  If  regeneration  be 
that  act  of  the  soul  by  which  it  chooses  God  for  its  por- 
tion, there  is  an  end  of  all  debate  on  the  subject.  Eor 
no  one  will  maintain  that  the  soul  is  passive  in  acting. 
But  if  there  be  any  change  in  the  moral  state  of  the 
soul,  prior  to  its  turning  unto  God,  then  it  is  proper  to 
14* 


162  OLD    AND    NEW    THEOLOGY. 

say,  that  the  soul  is  passive  as  to  that  particular  point ; 
that  is,  that  the  Holj  Spirit  is  the  author,  and  the  soul 
the  subject  of  the  change.  For  all  that  is  meant  by  the 
soul's  being  passive,  is,  that  it  is  not  the  agent  of  the 
change  in  question.  Its  immediate  and  delightful  turning 
unto  God  is  its  own  act ;  the  state  of  mind  which  leads 
to  this  act  is  produced  directly  by  the  Spirit  of  God. 
The  whole  question  is,  whether  any  such  anterior  change 
is  necessary ;  w^hether  a  soul  polluted  and  degraded  by 
sin,  or  in  Scripture  language,  carnal,  needs  any  change 
in  its  moral  taste  before  it  can  behold  the  loveliness  of 
the  divine  character.  For  that  this  view  must  precede 
the  exercise  of  afifection,  we  presume  will  not  be  denied. 
If  this  point  be  decided,  the  propriety  of  using  the  word 
'' passive"  to  denote  that  the  soul  is  the  subject  and  not  the 
agent  of  the  change  in  question,  need  not  give  us  much 
trouble.  Sure  it  is  that  this  change  is  in  Scripture 
always  referred  to  the  Holy  Spirit.  It  is  the  soul  that 
repents,  believes,  hopes  and  fears ;  but  it  is  the  Holy 
Spirit  that  regenerates.  He  is  the  author  of  our  faith 
and  repentance  by  inducing  us  to  act,  but  no  man  regen- 
erates himself.  The  soul,  although  essentially  active,  is 
still  capable  of  being  acted  upon.  It  receives  impres- 
sions from  sensible  objects,  from  other  spirits,  and  from 
the  Holy  Ghost.  In  every  sensation,  there  is  an  impres- 
sion made  by  some  external  object,  and  the  immediate 
knowledge  which  the  mind  takes  of  the  impression.  As 
to  the  first  point,  it  is  passive,  or  the  subject ;  as  to  the 
second,  it  is  active,  or  the  agent.  These  two  are  indeed 
inseparably  connected,  and  so  are  regeneration  and  con- 
version. .  .  And  if  the  Holy  Spirit  does  make  such  an 
impression  on  the  mind,  or  exert  such  an  influence  as 


OLD    AND    NEW    THEOLOGY.  163 

induces  it  immediately  to  turn  to  God,  then  it  is  correct 
to  say  that  it  is  passive  in  regeneration,  though  active  in 
conversion.  However,  this  is  a  very  subordinate  point ; 
the  main  question  is,  whether  there  is  not  a  holy  *  relish,' 
taste,  or  principle  produced  in  the  soul  prior,  in  the  order 
of  nature,  to  any  holy  act  of  the  soul  itself.  If  Dr.  Cox 
can  show  this  to  be  'intrinsically  absurd,' we  shall  give 
up  the  question  of  '  passivity'  without  a  moment's  demur. 
To  relinquish  the  other  point,  however,  will  cost  us  a 
painful  struggle.  It  will  be  giving  up  the  main  point  in 
debate  between  the  friends  and  opposers  of  the  doctrine 
of  grace  from  Augustine  to  the  present  day.  It  will  be 
the  renunciation  of  what  Calvinists,  old  and  new,  have 
believed  to  be  the  scriptural  doctrine  of  original  right- 
eousness, original  sin,  and  efficacious  grace.  It  will  be 
the  rejection  of  that  whole  system  of  mingled  sovereignty 
and  love  which  has  been  the  foundation,  for  ages,  of  so 
many  hopes,  and  of  so  much  blessedness  to  the  people  of 
God." 

We  mentioned  in  the  last  chapter  that  the  New  The- 
ology involves  the  doctrine  of  gradual  regeneration ;  and 
we  quoted  from  Mr.  Gilbert's  pamphlet  to  show  that  this 
sentiment  is  now  avowed  by  some  of  the  advocates  of  the 
new  system.  On  this  point  Dr.  Griffin  remarks,  "  The 
evidence  of  the  change  may  be  earlier  or  later  in  its 
appearance,  and  more  or  less  rapid  in  its  developments, 
but  the  change  itself  is  always  instantaneous.  Is  not 
such  an  idea  more  than  implied  in  the  text  ?  [Ezek.  xi. 
19.]  What  is  the  blessing  promised  ?  Not  the  gradual 
improvement  of  an  old  temper,  but  'a  new  spirit;'  — 
*  the  stony  heart'  not  softened  hy  degrees  into  flesh,  but 
by  one  decisive  effort  removed,  and  a  heart  of  flesh  sub- 


164  OLD    AND    NEW    THEOLOaT.' 

stituted  in  its  room." "This  doctrine,  however, 

does  not  militate  against  the  idea  of  an  antecedent  pre- 
paration  in  the  conscience,  wrought  by  the  means  of 
grace  and  the  enlightening  influences  of  the  Spirit." — 
Park  Street  Lectures^  pp.  91,  101. 

These  means,  according  to  our  standards,  are  "the 
word,  sacraments,  and  prayer."  In  answer  to  the  ques- 
tion, How  is  the  word  made  effectual  to  salvation  ?  the 
following  answer  is  given :  "  The  Spirit  of  God  maketh 
the  reading,  but  especially  the  preaching  of  the  word,  an 
effectual  means  of  enlightening,  convincing  and  humbling 
sinners,  of  driving  them  out  of  themselves,  and  drawing 
them  unto  Christ,"  &c.  Thus  the  law  is  said  to  be  "  our 
schoolmaster  to  lead  us  to  Christ ;"  "  The  law  of  the 
Lord  is  perfect,  converting  the  soul;"  "Of  his  own  will 
begat  he  us,  by  the  word  of  truth."  But  the  word,  let 
it  be  remembered,  is  only  the  means,  which  the  Holy 
Spirit  can  employ  or  not  as  he  pleases ;  and  which  when 
he  does  employ  (as  is  usually  the  case)  does  not  become 
effectual  to  salvation,  till  he  by  a  direct  influence  upon 
the  heart,  prepares  it  to  receive  and  embrace  the  truth. 
Lydia  did  not  attend  to  the  things  spoken  by  Paul,  until 
"the  Lord  opened  her  heart."  In  order  that  David 
might  behold  wondrous  things  out  of  God's  law,  he  prayed 
that  God  would  open  Ms  eyes.  The  primitive  Chris- 
tians had  access  by  faith  into  God's  grace,  and  rejoiced 
in  the  hope  of  the  glory  of  God,  exercising  the  grace  of 
patience  in  their  tribulations,  "  because  the  love  of  God 
was  shed  abroad  in  their  hearts  by  the  Holy  Ghost  given 
unto  them." 

Though  all  these  texts  do  not  refer  to  regeneration  in 
the  restricted  sense,  they  prove  the  doctrine  of  the  direct 


OLD    AND    NEW    THEOLOGY.  165 

influence  of  the  Spirit  upon  the  heart — and  it  is  for  this 
purpose  we  have  adduced  them.  If  the  Spirit  exerts  an 
immediate  influence  upon  the  hearts  of  believers,  in  order 
to  make  the  word  efi'ectual  to  their  sanctification,  much 
more  on  the  hearts  of  sinners  to  make  it  effectual  to  their 
conversion.  In  the  mind  of  the  believer  there  is  some- 
thing congenial  with  the  spirit  of  the  gospel ;  something, 
therefore,  for  divine  truth  to  act  upon  in  the  form  of  mo- 
tives:  but,  to  use  the  language  of  Dr.  Griffin,  "motives 
can  never  change  an  unholy  temper;  there  is  no  tendency 
in  truth  to  change  a  depraved  '  taste.'  The  change  must 
take  place  before  light  can  act." 

This  doctrine  of  the  direct  agency  of  the  Spirit,  and 
the  implantation  of  a  principle  of  holiness  in  the  heart, 
is  inseparably  connected  with  the  sentiment  that  the 
change  is  instantaneous.  Motives  operate  gradually  upon 
the  mind ;  but  the  communication  to  the  soul  of  a  new 
spiritual  taste,  is  the  work  of  a  moment.  We  either  pos- 
sess this  holy  temper  or  we  do  not ;  there  is  no  point  of 
time  when  we  have  neither  enmity  nor  love ;  or  when  our 
affections  are  suspended  in  equilibrio  between  the  two. 
Our  souls  are  necessarily  either  in  one  state  or  its  oppo- 
site ;  and  our  transition,  therefore,  from  one  to  the  other 
must  be  instantaneous  ;  as  when  God  said,  '^^  Let  there 
be  light,  and  there  was  light." 

It  may,  perhaps,  be  thought  by  some  that  the  differ- 
ence between  instantaneous  and  gradual  regeneration  is 
not  important,  since  both  recognize  the  necessity  of  be- 
coming holy.  But  a  little  reflection  will  show  the  con- 
trary. Gradual  regeneration  is  founded  on  the  principle 
that  there  is  something  good  in  the  unregenerate  man, 
which  needs  only  to  be  fostered  and  cherished,  in  order 


166  OLD    AND    NEW    THEOLOGY. 

to  make  him  holy.  Of  course  it  involves  a  denial  of  total 
depravity,  and  of  the  necessity  of  an  entire  radical  change 
of  character.  It  fosters  pride  and  self-righteousness ; 
and  produces  hostility  to  those  doctrines  of  grace  which 
distinguish  the  gospel  from  the  religion  of  nature.  It  is, 
in  short,  taking  a  step  toward  infidelity. 

In  regard  to  human  ability,  our  Confession  of  Faith 
uses  the  following  language :  "  Man,  by  his  fall  into  a 
state  of  sin,  hath  wholly  lost  all  ability  of  will  to  any 
spiritual  good  accompanying  salvation ;  so  as  a  natural 
man  being  altogether  averse  from  that  which  is  good, 
and  dead  in  sin,  is  not  able,  by  his  own  strength,  to  con- 
vert himself,  or  prepare  himself  thereunto."  Some  have 
endeavoured  to  prove  from  this  passage  that,  according 
to  the  Confession  of  Faith,  depravity  belongs  exclusively 
to  the  will.  But  this,  it  appears  to  us,  is  not  a  correct 
exposition.  As  the  design  of  the  chapter  was  to  treat 
"Of  Free  Will,"  it  would  of  course  state  explicitly  what 
effect  the  fall  had  upon  the  will,  without  speaking  as  a 
matter  of  course,  concerning  the  other  powers  of  the  soul. 
There  is,  however,  a  clause  introduced,  which  was  evi- 
dently designed  to  refer  to  the  whole  moral  man :  '•''Dead 
in  sin.''  The  preceding  clause,  viz.  "so  as  a  natural 
man  being  altogether  averse  from  that  which  is  good," 
refers  to  the  will ;  but  to  this,  the  other  is  superadded — 
^' and  dead  in  sin' — which  was  intended  to  convey  an 
additional  idea,  embracing,  perhaps,  the  former,  but 
amplifying  and  extending  it,  so  as  to  include  the  de- 
pravity of  our  whole  nature.  This  will  appear  by  a 
reference  to  the  chapter  on  the  "  Fall  of  Man ;"  where 
it  reads  as  follows :  "  By  this  sin  they  [our  first  parents] 
fell  from  their  original  righteousness,  and  communion 


OLD    AND    NEW    THEOLOGY,  167 

witli  God,  and  so  become  dead  in  sin.  and  wholly  defiled 
in  all  the  faculties  and  parts  of  soul  and  body."  It  will 
also  appear,  by  a  reference  to  the  chapter  on  "  Effectual 
Calling;"  where,  in  describing  the  manner  in  which  we 
are  brought  "out  of  that  state  of  sin  and  death,"  it  is 
not  only  said  that  our  wills  are  renewed,  but  our  minds 
spiritually  and  savingly  enlightened  to  understand  the 
things  of  God ;  and  our  heart  of  stone  taken  away  and  a 
heart  of  flesh  given  us.  If  depravity  belongs  to  the  will 
only,  that  alone  needs  to  be  operated  upon  in  effectual 
calling.  It  is  evident,  therefore,  that  our  standards  teach 
the  doctrine  not  only  that  the  will  is  depraved,  but  like- 
wise "  all  the  faculties  of  the  soul." 

This  view  also  accords  with  Scripture.  "  There  is 
none  th3;t  under sta7ideth.''  Horn.  iii.  11.  "Having  the 
understanding  darkened,  being  alienated  from  the  life  of 
God  through  the  ignorance  that  is  in  them,  because  of 
the  blindness  of  their  heart."  Eph.  iv.  18.  "But  the 
natural  man  receiveth  not  the  things  of  the  Spirit  of  God, 
for  they  are  foolishness  unto  him ;  neither  can  he  know 
them,  because  they  are  spiritually  discerned."  1  Cor.  ii. 
14.  Here  it  is  manifest  that  our  depravity  affects  the 
understanding.  Hence  in  conversion  it  is  necessary  that 
we  be  enlightened  to  discern  spiritual  things.  "  The  eyes 
of  your  understanding  being  enlightened."  Eph.  i.  18. 
"  For  God  who  commanded  the  light  to  shine  out  of  dark- 
ness, hath  shined  in  our  hearts,  to  give  the  light  of  the 
knowledge  of  the  glory  of  God  in  the  face  of  Jesus 
Christ."  2  Cor.  iv.  6.  "And  have  put  on  the  new  man, 
which  is  renewed  in  knowledge  after  the  image  of  him 
that  created  him."   Col.  iii.  10. 

Depravity  is  also  predicated  of  the  heart  and  con- 


168  OLD    AND    NEW    THEOLOGY. 

science.  "  The  heart  is  deceitful  ahove  all  things,  and 
desperately  wicked."  Jer.  xvii.  9.  "But  unto  them  that 
are  defiled  and  unbelieving,  is  nothing  pure ;  but  even 
their  mind  and  conscience  is  defiled."  Tit.  i.  15.  Do 
these  texts  refer  exclusively  to  the  will  ?  or  do  they  not 
include  also  the  other  moral  powers  ?  As  the  heart  is 
the  seat  of  the  affections,  to  say  that  the  heart  is  wicked, 
is  equivalent  to  declaring  the  affections  to  be  depraved 
and  alienated  from  God.  Accordingly,  to  change  the 
heart  is  to  give  us  a  holy  temper — to  renew  our  affections. 
"  The  Lord  thy  God  will  circumcise  thine  heart,  and  tho 
heart  of  thy  seed,  to  love  the  Lord  thy  God."  Deut.  xxx. 
6.  "And  I  will  put  a  new  spirit  within  you,  and  I  will 
take  the  stony  heart  out  of  their  flesh  and  will  give  them 
a  heart  of  flesh."  Ezek.  xi.  19.  When  this  is  done,  our 
conscience  will  likewise  be  rectified :  "  Having  our  hearts 
sprinkled  from  an  evil  conscience."  Heb.  x.  22.  Then, 
too,  the  will  which  is  controlled  by  the  state  of  the  heart, 
is  sweetly  inclined  by  the  same  Spirit  to  choose  and  rest 
upon  Christ  as  the  portion  of  the  soul.  "  My  people 
shall  be  willing  in  the  day  of  thy  power."  Psa.  ex.  3. 

From  this  view  of  the  subject,  it  appears  that  the  fall 
has  affected  the  whole  moral  man.  What  God  says  of 
Judah  is  applicable  to  all  mankind.  "  The  whole  head 
is  sick,  and  the  whole  heart  faint.  From  the  sole  of  the 
foot  even  unto  the  head,  there  is  no  soundness  in  it."  Isa. 
i.  5,  6.  This  doctrine,  we  admit,  is  very  humiliating, 
and  calculated  to  make  the  sinner  feel  his  dependence 
upon  God.  But  this,  instead  of  being  an  objection,  is  a 
proof  of  its  correctness.  While  it  must  not  be  so  inter- 
preted as  to  annihilate  or  even  impair  the  sinner's  obli- 
gation, or  form  any  excuse  for  his  impenitence  and  un- 


OLD    AND    NEW    THEOLOGY.  169 

belief,  it  is  a  doctrine  which  is  pre-eminently  adapted  to 
drive  him  from  those  refuges  of  self-righteousness  and 
self-sufficiency,  which  prove  the  ruin  of  so  many  souls, 
and  lead  him  to  seek  salvation  only  through  the  grace 
and  righteousness  of  Jesus  Christ.  It  is,  indeed,  the 
very  point  to  which  sinners  always  come  before  they  em- 
brace the  Saviour. 

On  this  subject  Dr.  Witherspoon  uses  the  following 
language :  "On  a  conviction  of  our  own  inability,  one 
would  think  we  should  but  the  more  humbly  and  the  more 
earnestly  apply  to  Him,  who  is  all-sufficient  in  power  and 
grace.  The  deplorable  and  naturally  helpless  state  of 
sinners,  doth  not  hinder  exhortations  to  them  in  Scrip- 
ture ;  and  therefore  takes  not  away  their  obligation  to 
duty.  See  an  address,  where  the  strongest  metaphors 
are  retained,  the  exhortation  given  in  these  very  terms, 
and  the  foundation  of  the  duty  plainly  pointed  out : 
'  Wherefore  he  saith.  Awake  thou  that  sleepest,  and  arise 
from  the  dead,  and  Christ  shall  give  thee  light.'  From 
which  it  is  very  plain,  that  the  moral  inability,  under 
which  sinners  now  lie,  as  a  consequence  of  the  fall,  is 
not  of  such  a  nature  as  to  take  away  the  guilt  of  sin,  the 
propriety  of  exhortation  to  duty,  or  the  necessity  of  en- 
deavours after  recovery."  .  .  .  "  I  make  no  scruple  to 
acknowledge,  that  it  is  impossible  for  me,  nay,  I  find  no 
difficulty  in  supposing  that  it  is  impossible  for  any  finite 
mind,  to  point  out  the  bounds  between  the  '  dependence' 
and  '  activity'  of  the  creature."  ..."  The  new  birth  is 
a  '  supernatural  change ;'  it  is  the  effect  of  the  power  of 
God ;  it  is  the  work  of  the  Holy  Ghost.  I  have  been  at 
the  more  pains  to  establish  this  truth,  because  I  am  per- 
suaded, that  until  it  be  truly  received  there  may  be  a 
15 


170  OLD    AND    NEW    THEOLOGY. 

form,  but  there  can  be  nothing  of  the  power  of  godliness.** 
.  .  .  "But  what  shall  we  say?  Alas!  the  very  subject 
we  are  now  speaking  of  affords  a  new  proof  of  the  blind- 
ness, prejudice,  and  obstinacy  of  sinners.  They  are  self- 
condemned  ;  for  they  do  not  act  the  same  part  in  similar 
cases.  The  affairs  of  the  present  life  are  not  managed 
in  so  preposterous  a  manner.  He  that  ploughs  his  ground, 
and  throws  in  his  seed,  cannot  so  much  as  unite  one  grain 
to  the  clod  ;  nay,  he  is  not  able  to  conceive  how  it  is  done. 
He  cannot  carry  on,  nay,  he  cannot  so  much  as  begin 
one  single  step  of  this  wonderful  process  towards  the 
subsequent  crop;  the  mortification  of  the  seed,  the  re- 
surrection of  the  blade,  and  gradual  increase,  till  it  come 
to  perfect  maturity.  Is  it,  therefore,  reasonable  that  he 
should  say,  ^  I  for  my  part  can  do  nothing ;  it  is,  first  and 
last,  an  effect  of  divine  power  and  energy :  and  God  can 
as  easily  raise  a  crop  without  sowing  as  wdth  it,  in  a 
single  instant,  and  in  any  place,  as  in  a  long  time  by  the 
mutual  influence  of  soil  and  season  ;  I  will  therefore  spare 
myself  the  hardship  of  toil  and  labour,  and  wait  with 
patience  till  I  see  what  he  will  be  pleased  to  send  V 
Would  not  this  be  madness  ?  Would  it  not  be  universally 
reputed  so  ?  And  would  it  not  be  equal  madness  to  turn 
the  grace  of  God  into  licentiousness  ?  Believe  it,  the 
warning  is  equally  reasonable  and  equally  necessary,  in 
spiritual  as  in  temporal  things.  '  Be  not  deceived,  God 
is  not  mocked,  for  whatsoever  a  man  soweth,  that  shall 
he  also  reap :  for  he  that  soweth  to  the  flesh,  shall  of  the 
flesh  reap  corruption ;  but  he  that  soweth  to  the  Spirit, 
shall  of  the  Spirit  reap  life  everlasting.'  " — Practical 
Treatise  on  Regeneration^  Sect.  4. 
But  while  the  doctrine  of  human  inability  and  depen- 


OLD    AND    NEW    THEOLOGY.  171 

dcnce  upon  God,  as  understood  and  believed  by  those  who 
adhere  to  the  Old  Theology,  does  not  destroy  accountable- 
ness,  nor  impair  obligation,  nor  discourage  effort,  but 
brings  the  sinner  to  his  proper  place  before  the  throne 
of  divine  mercy,  we  think  the  doctrine  of  ability,  as  main- 
tained by  the  advocates  of  the  New  Theology,  is  calcu- 
lated to  produce  such  independence  of  feeling,  with  regard 
to  the  Spirit's  influences,  as  to  be  a  serious  obstacle  to 
genuine  conversion.  Among  the  "  false  comforts  for  sin- 
ners," which  Mr.  Finney  enumerates,  one  is,  ''telling  the 
sinner  to  pray  for  a  new  heart.''  He  asks,  "  Does  God 
say.  Pray  for  a  new  heart  ?  Never.  He  says,  '  Make  you 
a  new  heart.'  And  the  sinner  is  not  to  be  told  to  pray 
to  God  to  do  his  duty  for  him,  but  to  go  and  do  it  him- 
self."— Lectures  on  Revivals,  p.  318.  Thus  it  appears, 
we  must  not  direct  sinners  to  seek  God  for  renewing 
grace,  because  they  have  sufficient  ability  of  their  own  to 
perform  the  work.  To  preach  to  them  the  necessity  of 
the  Spirit's  influences,  while  exhorting  them  to  duty, 
would  be  according  to  him  "  unphilosophical."  We  must 
tell  them  "to  go  and  do  it  themselves."  What  kind  of 
conversions  is  such  instruction  as  this  calculated  to  pro- 
duce ?  *     It  is  no  wonder  that  the  revivals  of  religion 

*  Let  the  reader  judge  of  the  probable  effect  upon  the  sinner  of 
preaching  such  doctrines  as  are  developed  in  the  following  conver- 
sation between  a  licentiate,  a  student  from  New  Haven,  and  two 
highly  respectable  ministers,  in  1832.  It  was  taken  down  at  the 
time  by  one  of  the  ministers,  as  he  has  informed  us,  "  the  paper 
sealed  up,  and  has  been  kept  since  a  secret."  In  communicating 
it  to  us  a  few  weeks  ago,  he  observes :  "  If  you  judge  it  to  be  pro- 
per, you  are  now  at  liberty  to  use  the  document  in  your  forthcoming 
book ;  suppressing  the  names  for  the  present,  but  considering  me 


172  OLD    AND    NEW    THEOLOaT. 

"which  have  occurred  within  the  last  ten  years,  under  the 
ministry  of  such  men,  should  furnish  so  many  examples 
of  apostasy.     In  a  discourse  delivered  by  Mr.  Finney  in 

as  responsible  for  the  statement,  and  ready  to  give  the  names  here- 
after if  necessary." 

"  Mr.  ,  [one  of  the  ministers,]  in  the  course  of  general 

conversation,  alluded  to  New  Haven  as  a  school  of  Theology,  and 

asked  finally  that  Mr. ,  [the  licentiate,]  would  state  what 

were  the  peculiarities  of  Professor  Fitch's  scheme  of  natural  de- 
pravity.    Mr. avowed  himself  a  believer  in  that  scheme, 

and  stated  among  other  things,  in  substance  as  follows:  (many  of 
the  following  views,  he  said,  however,  were  his  own,  and  not  charge- 
able upon  any  others,  or  any  particular  school):  that  '  moral  char- 
acter was  predicated  entirely  on  choice  between  good  and  evil :  that 
man  was  not  regarded  with  displeasure  in  the  sight  of  God,  either 
"by  imputation  of  original  sin,  or  as  having  a  disposition  to  evil. 
He  was  in  no  sense  a  sinner,  until  of  sufficient  age  and  capacity  to 
choose  for  himself;  and  if  there  was  a  period  in  his  existence  pre- 
vious to  that,  during  that  period  he  was  an  innocent  being.' " 

*'  The  bearing  of  this  on  the  doctrine  of  regeneration  was  then 

suggested ;  whereupon  Mr. stated  in  substance,  that  he  did 

not  regard  the  saying  of  Christ  to  Nicodemus,  '  that  which  is  born 
of  the  flesh  is  flesh,  and  that  which  is  born  of  the  Spirit  is  spirit,' 
as  implying  anything  like  a  new  moral  nature,  opposite  to  his  first 
nature,  as  given  to  him  in  regeneration.  He  believed  that  subject 
had  been  misunderstood.  There  was  indeed  a  necessity  for  regen- 
eration, but  it  consisted  not  in  the  implantation  of  new  principles, 
but  the  rational  turning  of  the  same  principles  to  a  new  course. 
As  to  the  way  in  which  it  was  produced,  God's  help  was  indeed 
necessary,  but  no  more  so  than  in  every  other  action  of  man.  He 
presented  motives,  and  when  a  man  sincerely  made  up  his  resolu- 
tion to  follow  them,  and  did  decide  to  do  so,  that  was  the  beginning 

of  a  new  life.'     Mr. asked  him  if  any  sinner  ever  did  come 

to  Christ  without  feeling  his  helpless  and  lost  condition?  Mr. 
said  *  he  thought,  yes  ;  and  mentioned  his  own  case.'  " 

*'  The  bearing  of  the  subject  on  atonement  and  justification  was 

next  alluded  to ;  and  Mr. [the  licentiate,]  observed  'that  it 

•was  a  scheme  which  did  indeed  run  through  the  whole.     As  to 


OLD    AND    NEW    THEOLOGY.  173 

Chatham  street  chapel,  in  1836,  are  found  such  sentences 
as  the  following:*  ''You  profess  that  you  want  to  have 

atonement,  he  believed  in  it,  but  he  seemed  to  consider  it  as  con- 
sisting in  what  lay  between  God  and  his  intelligent  universe  exclu- 
sively, and  that  for  laying  a  ground  of  justifying  his  own  proceed- 
ings; as  such,  a  man  ought  to  trust  in  or  believe  the  atonement: 
but  in  [the]  matter  of  personal  experience  we  had  nothing  to  do 
with  it;  the  righteousness  of  Christ  is  in  no  sense  imputed  to  us: 
we  must  be  accepted  on  the  ground  of  our  own  obedience.'  " 

"Much  was  said  also  of  the  practical  influence  of  such  a  stylo 

of  preaching;  and  it  was  objected  to  Mr.  's  scheme,  that 

taking  men  as  they  are,  they  would  be  likely  to  interpret  his  views 
of  their  own  powers  and  independency  as  even  more  favourable 

to  themselves  than  he  probably  intended :  and  Mr. [one  of 

the  ministers]  remarked  that  as  the  gospel  was  represented  *  to  be 
a  seeking  and  saving  that  which  was  lost;'  '  to  kill  and  make  alive ;'-^ 
he  had  always  felt  it  to  be  more  necessary  to  show  men  their  help- 
lessness connected  with  their  guilt,  and  a  way  of  hope,  than  to  per- 
suade them  of   their  own  powers.     Mr.  [the  licentiate,] 

held  the  opposite  opinion.  He  seemed  to  think  that  the  reason 
why  many  more  were  not  pious,  was,  that  too  many  and  unneces- 
sary difficulties  were  left  in  the  way.  They  ought  to  be  reasoned 
with  more  :  show  them  that  this  work  is  not  so  hard  and  unreason- 
able :  they  could  be  persuaded  to  make  a  choice  if  you  would  only 
present  the  thing  as  rational ;  and  many  were  thus  won,  where 
this  scheme  was  now  adopted.  He  said  much  of  the  figurative 
language  of  Scripture,  and  seemed  to  think  that  such  passages  as 
'  the  carnal  mind  is  enmity  against  God,'  did  not  apply  to  men  at 
the  present  age  of  the  world,  but  peculiarly  to  the  Jews,  on  account 
of  their  prejudices.  The  opposition  which  we  have  often  witnessed 
against  religion  in  natural  men  is  not  so  much  against  God  or  reli- 
gion itself,  as  against  the  prejudiced  representations  of  it  by  mis- 
taken teachers.'^ 

This  individual,  who  is  denominated  by  our  correspondent  "  a 
respectable  young  man,"  was  at  that  time,  as  we  infer  from  his 
letter,  seeking  a  settlement  in  a  Presbyterian  congregation. 

*  We  qiKjte  from  the  Literary  and  Theological  Review.     Tho 
15* 


174  OLD    AND    NEW    THEOLOGY. 

sinners  converted.  Eut  what  avails  it  if  they  sink  right 
back  again  into  conformity  to  the  world  ?"  .  .  .  "Where 
are  the  proper  results  of  the  glorious  revivals  we  have 
had?"  .  .  .  "The  great  body  of  them  [the  converts  of 
the  last  ten  years]  are  a  disgrace  to  religion."  ..."  Of 
what  use  is  it  to  convert  sinners  and  make  them  such 
Christians  as  tliese  ?"  This  is  an  acknowledgment  that 
the  fruits  of  those  revivals  are  not  such  as  were  antici- 
pated— and  so  long  as  converts  are  made  under  the  in- 
fluence of  such  doctrines,  and  that  system  of  measures 
which  corresponds  with  them,  we  must  expect  similar 
results.  Their  goodness  will  be  as  the  morning  cloud, 
and  as  the  early  dew  it  will  pass  away. 

The  following  remarks  of  Dr.  Reed,  one  of  the  dele- 
gates from  England  to  the  American  churches,  accord 
with  the  sentiments  and  observation  of  very  many  in 
America,  who  have  been  "witnesses  of  these  things." 
"  The  New  Divinity  and  the  New  Measures  have  greatly 
coalesced,  and  they  have  given  for  the  time,  currency  to 
each  other.  Many  pious  and  ardent  persons  and  preachers, 
from  the  causes  to  which  I  have  adverted,  were  disposed 
to  think  that  the  new  opinions  had  all  the  advantage  in  a 
revival,  and  this  gave  them  all  the  preference  in  their 
judgment.  Where  they  in  connection  with  the  New 
Measures  have  been  vigorously  applied,  there  has,  indeed, 
been  no  want  of  excitement.  The  preacher  who  firmly 
believes  that  the  conversion  of  men  rests  on  the  force  of 
moral  suasion,  is  not  unlikely  to  be  persuasive.  And 
the  hearer  who  is  told  'he  can  convert  himself,'  that  it  is 

sermon  it  appears  was  reported  in  the  New  York  Evangelist,  Feb- 
ruary 13,  1836. 


OLD    AND    NEW    THEOLOGY.  175 

*as  easy  for  him  to  do  so  as  to  walk,'  that  he  has  only 
*  to  resolve  to  do  it  and  it  is  done,'  is  not  unlikely  to  be 
moved  into  self-complacent  exertion.  But  it  may  be 
asked,  does  either  the  preacher  or  the  hearer  possess 
those  sentiments  which  are  likely  to  lead  to  a  true 
conversion,  and  to  bring  forth  fruits  meet  for  repent- 
ance ? 

"By  their  fruits  ye  shall  know  them.  There  has 
certainly  been  good  done  where  there  has  been  much 
evil,  for  with  this  evil  there  has  been  a  large  portion  of 
divine  truth.  But  I  fear  not  to  say,  that  where  there  has 
been  the  largest  infusion  of  the  Ncav  Divinity  into  the 
New  Measures,  there  has  been  the  greatest  amount  of 
unwarrantable  extravagance.  There  has  been  great  ex- 
citement, much  animal  emotion  and  sympathy,  high  re- 
solves, and  multiplied  conversions,  hut  time  has  tested 
them  and  they  have  failed.'' 


CHAPTER  IX. 

A    CONTRAST     BETWEEN     THE    OLD    AND     NEW"    THEOLOGY,    BY     WAY   OF 
REVIEW,    AND    A    NOTICE    OF    THE    PERFECTIONISM    OF    MR.  FINNEY. 

That  the  reader  may  see  at  a  single  view  the  most 
prominent  points  of  difference  between  the  Old  and  New 
Theology,  we  shall  exhibit  them  in  few  words  by  way  of 
contrast : — in  doing  which  we  shall  take  a  kind  of  retro- 
spect of  the  subject,  and  exemplify  some  of  the  princi- 
ples which  have  been  noticed,  by  a  few  additional  quota 
tions. 


176  OLD    AND    NEW    THEOLOGY/ 

1.  The  Old  Theology  places  God  upon  the  throne  of 
the  universe,  and  makes  him  competent  to  say,  concern- 
ing all  creatures  and  events,  ''  My  counsel  shall  stand, 
and  I  will  do  all  my  pleasure."  The  New  makes  him  so 
dependent  upon  the  volitions  of  moral  agents,  that  he  is 
Hable  to  suffer  disappointment,  and  to  have  his  happiness 
iiminished,  by  the  uncontrollable  agency  of  men  : — and 
this  not  only  in  the  present  world,  but  in  the  next.  Prof. 
Fitch  affirms  that  God's  "  purpose  was  to  confer  on  the 
beings  composing  his  moral  kingdom,  the  power  of  voli- 
tion and  choice,  and  to  use  the  best  influence  God  could 
use  on  the  whole  to  secure  the  holiness  and  prevent  the 
sin  of  such  beings,  who  themselves,  and  not  he,  were  to 
have  immediate  power  over  their  volitions."  Again ; 
"  We  affirm  that  the  causes  in  kind  which  originate  sin, 
being  inseparably  inherent  in  a  moral  universe,  may  so 
accumulate  in  degree  under  every  system  of  providence 
and  government  which  can  be  pursued,  as  to  render  sure 
the  occurrence  of  sin.  If  in  a  universe  of  such  beings, 
no  possible  system  of  providence  adopted  and  pursued 
through  eternity  can  shut  out  all  occasions  of  the  out- 
breakings  of  sin,  it  is  easy  to  see,  that  as  to  his  prevent- 
ing it,  sin  is  unavoidably  incidental  to  the  acts  of  the 
Creator  in  creating  and  governing  such  a  kingdom."  .  . 
"  The  causes  in  kind  which  are  known  to  originate  sin  in 
the  present  universe,  must  necessarily  be  present  in  any 
possible  universe  of  moral  beings."  .  .  .  "If  the  causes 
of  defectibility  are  thus  inseparable  from  the  existence 
of  a  universe  of  moral  beings,  is  there  not  a  ground  of 
probability  that  they  will  lead  to  actual  defection  in  every 
possible  system  as  well  as  in  this?" — ''Review  of  Dr. 
risk's  Discourse  on  Predestination  and  Election,  and  a 


OLD    AND    NEW    TIIEOLOGT.  177 

Defence  of  that  Review  in  the  Christian  Spectator." 
What  low  and  unworthy  views  does  this  statement  convey 
concerning  the  Deity !  What  dismal  prospects  it  pre- 
sents to  the  expectant  of  future  and  eternal  hliss  ! 

2.  The  Old  Theology  regards  the  fall  of  man  as  a 
catastrophe  so  direful  in  its  effects,  that  no  power  less 
than  Omnipotence  is  adequate  to  "  quicken  sinners  who 
are  dead  in  trespasses  and  sins."  The  New  treats  it  as 
a  calamity,  which  the  sinner  is  able,  since  the  introduc- 
tion of  a  system  of  mercy  through  Jesus  Christ,  to  repair 
himself.  Says  Mr.  Finney,  "  Now  suppose  God  to  have 
come  out  upon  Adam  with  the  command  of  the  text, 
*Make  you  a  new  heart,  for  why  will  ye  die?'  Could 
Adam  have  justly  answered,  '  Dost  thou  think  that  I  can 
change  my  own  heart  ?  Can  I,  who  have  a  heart  totally 
depraved — can  I  change  that  heart  ?'  Might  not  the 
Almighty  have  answered  him  in  words  of  fire,  '  Rebel,  you 
have  just  changed  your  heart  from  holiness  to  sin,  now 
change  it  back  from  sin  to  holiness.'  " — Sermons  on  Inv- 
portant  Subjects,  p.  13.  See  also  Mr.  Barnes's  remarks 
on  the  text,  "When  we  were  without  strength,  Christ 
died  for  the  ungodly,"  in  Chap.  vii.  We  shall  likewise 
give  one  or  two  additional  quotations  in  the  present  chap- 
ter, under  the  head  of  Ability. 

8.  The  Old  Theology  maintains  that  Adam  was  the 
federal  head  of  his  posterity,  and  that,  by  breaking  the 
covenant  under  which  he  was  placed,  he  involved  not 
only  himself,  but  all  his  posterity,  in  sin  and  misery — the 
guilt  of  his  first  sin  being  imputed  to  them,  or  set  over 
in  law  to  their  account;  so  that  they  all  come  into  the 
world  with  depraved  and  sinful  natures.  The  New  denies 
that  we  sustain  a  covenant  relation  to  Adam ;  and  main- 


178  OLD    AND    NEW    THEOLOGT. 

tains  tliat  he  was  only  our  natural  head  and  father — from 
whose  sin  it  results  as  a  matter  of  fact,  according  to  the 
common  laws  of  human  society,  that  all  his  posterity 
become  sinners  when  they  arrive  at  moral  agency ;  before 
which  time  they  are  neither  sinful  nor  holy ;  and  that 
they  become  sinners  by  their  own  voluntary  act,  after  a 
trial,  it  would  seem,  similar  to  what  Adam  had.  Says 
Dr.  Taylor,  in  reply  to  a  supposed  objection,  "Why 
render  this  universal  sinfulness  of  a  race,  the  consequence 
of  one  man's  act  ?  why  not  give  to  each  a  fair  trial  for 
himself?"  "  I  answer,  God  does  give  to  each  a  fair  trial 
for  himself.  Not  a  human  being  does  or  can  become  thus 
sinful  or  depraved  but  by  his  own  choice.  God  does  not 
compel  him  to  sin  by  the  nature  he  gives  him.  Nor  is 
his  sin,  although  a  consequence  of  Adam's  sin,  in  such  a 
sense  its  consequence  as  not  to  be  a  free,  voluntary  act  of 
his  own.  He  sins  freely,  voluntarily.  There  is  no  other 
way  of  sinning.  God,  (there  is  no  irreverence  in  saying 
it),  can  make  nothing  else  sin  but  the  sinner's  act." — 
Concio  ad  Clerum. 

Mr.  Barnes  observes :  "  If  it  were  a  dogma  of  a  pre- 
tended revelation,  that  God  might  at  pleasure,  and  by  an 
arbitrary  decree,  make  crime  pass  from  one  individual  to 
another — striking  onward  from  age  to  age,  and  reaching 
downward  to  '  the  last  season  of  recorded  time' — punished 
in  the  original  offender  ;  repunished  in  his  children  ;  and 
punished  again  and  again  by  infinite  multiples,  in  count- 
less ages  and  individuals ;  and  all  this  judicial  infliction, 
for  a  single  act,  performed  cycles  of  ages  before  the 
individuals  lived,  we  see  not  how  any  evidence  could  shake 
our  intrinsic  belief  that  this  is  unjust  and  improbable." 
.  .  .  .  "  We  never  can  adopt  that  system  which  tramples 


OLD    AND    NEW    THEOLOGY.  179 

on  the  analogies  wliich  actually  exist,  and  holds  men  to 
be  personally  ansiverable,  and  actually  punished  by  a  just 
God,  for  an  act  committed  thousands  of  years  before  they 
were  born.  Such  a  doctrine  is  nowhere  to  be  found  in 
the  Scriptures." — Introductory  JEssay  to  Butler  s  An- 
alogy^ pp.  35,  39. 

All  that  we  deem  it  necessary  to  say  concerning  the 
views  contained  in  these  extracts,  is,  that  Unitarians 
consider  them  ^^  sound  and  lucid.''  In  the  Review  of 
Mr.  Barnes's  Notes  on  the  Romans,  in  the  Christian  Ex- 
aminer, already  referred  to,  [a  Unitarian  Quarterly]  the 
reviewer  says :  "  On  the  subject  of  man's  nature,  capaci- 
ties, and  duty,  our  author  is  sound  and  lucid.  The  idea 
of  hereditary  depravity  he  spurns,  as  unworthy  of  even, 
a  passing  notice.  He  asserts  repeatedly  that  men  sin 
only  in  their  own  person,  in  themselves,  as  indeed  how 
can  they  sin  in  any  other  way?  The  imputation  of 
Adam's  transgression  he  treats  as  a  scholastic  absurdity." 
.  ..."  Of  the  figment  of  Adam's  federal  headship  and 
the  condemnation  of  his  posterity  for  partnership  in  his 
sin,  Mr.  Barnes  says  '  there  is  not  one  word  of  it  in  the 
Bible.'"* 

*  The  views  of  Socinus  are  as  follows : 

Quest.  1.  "  Is  it  in  our  power  fully  to  obey  the  commandments 
of  God?" 

Answ.  "  Certainly ;  for  it  is  evident,  that  the  first  man  was  so 
formed  by  God,  that  he  was  endued  with  free  will ;  and  no  reason 
existed  why  he  should  be  deprived  of  this  power  after  the  fall; 
nor  was  it  consistent  with  the  justice  of  God,  that  man  should  be 
deprived  of  free  will.  Accordingly,  in  the  punishment  inflicted  on 
his  sin,  there  is  no  mention  made  of  any  such  loss.'' 

Quest.  2.  "But  is  not  the  will  of  man  vitiated  by  original  sin  V* 

Answ.  "  There  is  no  such  thing  as  original  sin :  the  Scripture 


180  OLD    AND    NEW    THEOLOGY. 

4.  The  Old  Theology  maintains  that  the  atonement 
consisted  in  rendering  satisfaction  to  divine  justice  by  the 
vicarious  sufferings  of  Christ,  who  endured  in  oui'  stead 
the  penalty  of  the  law,  and  offered  up  himself  an  accept- 
able sacrifice  to  God :  by  which  offering  God's  ''  favour 
was  propitiated  for  us,"  his  law  magnified,  and  his  gov- 
ernment sustained  :  so  that  without  doing  violence  to  his 
holy  nature,  or  relinquishing  the  claims  of  his  law,  or 
dishonouring  his  government,  he  secured  the  salvation  of 
those  who  were  given  to  Christ  ir  the  covenant  of  redemp- 
tion ;  John  xvii.  2  ;  Isa.  liii.  11,  12  ;  and  laid  the  founda- 
tion for  a  free  offer  of  mercy  to  all  who  hear  the  gospel. 
Mark  xvi.  15 ;  John  iii.  16. 

The  New  Theology  considers  the  atonement  as  involv- 
ing a  suspension  of  the  penalty  of  the  law,  and  as  con- 
sisting in  a  "symbolical  display"  to  the  universe,  for  the 
purpose  of  producing  such  an  impression  of  God's  hatred 
to  sin,  as  would  render  it  safe  and  proper  for  him  as  moral 
Governor,  to  bestow  pardon  upon  sinners :  and  as  to  sin- 
ners themselves,  it  is  an  "experiment,"  made  by  God  for 
their  salvation ;  which,  through  his  impotency  to  control 
moral  agents,  may  fail  of  its  intended  result.*     Among 

teaches  no  such  doctrine  ;  and  the  will  of  man  could  not  be  vitiated 
by  a  cause  which  had  no  existence.  The  sin  of  Adam,  being  a 
single  act,  could  not  corrupt  his  own  nature,  much  less  had  it  power 
to  deprave  the  nature  of  all  his  posterity.  That  this  sin  should  be 
charged  on  them,  is,  as  has  been  said,  a  doctrine  unknown  to  the 
Scriptures ;  and  it  is  utterly  incredible,  that  God,  who  is  the  foun- 
tain of  equity,  should  be  willing  to  impute  it  to  them."  Racovian 
Catechism,  compiled  from  the  writings  of  Socinus,  and  published 
A.  D.  1606  ;  translated  for  the  Biblical  Repertory  ;  q.  v. 

^  We  have  not  met  with   any  writer  who  expressed  himself  in 
this  revolting  form,  except  Mr.  Jenkyn,  in  his  work  on  the  Atone- 


OLD    AND    NEW    THEOLOGY.  181 

other  relations  of  the  atonement  discussed  by  Mr.  Jenkyn, 
lie  considers  it  in  relation  to  the  purposes  and  providences 
of  God.  Under  the  former  he  observes,  "  The  various 
dispensations  of  probation  are  various  experiments  in 
moral  government,  in  which  God  submits  his  own  plans 
and  ways  to  the  acceptance  and  for  the  use  of  free  agents. 
If  any  object  to  the  word  *  experiment,'  I  beg  to  refer 
them  for  the  meaning  of  it,  to  the  parable  of  the  barren 
fig-tree,  and  to  that  of  the  husbandman  sending  his  ser- 
vants, and  afterwards  his  son  to  the  vineyard.  These 
dispensations  or  experiments  are  capable  of  failure.  The 
Eden  experiment  failed — and  the  Sinai  experiment  failed. 
Such  susceptibility  of  failure  has  been  shown  to  be  inci- 
dental to  a  moral  government  and  a  state  of  trial."  Un- 
der its  relation  to  providence  he  says,  "  The  measures  of 
providence  are  liable  to  failure.  A  medicine  may  fail, 
notwithstanding  the  virtue  which  providence  has  given  it. 
The  crop  of  the  husbandman  may  fail,  notwithstanding 
the  provision  that  seed-time  and  harvest-time  shall  con- 
tinue. The  morbid  fear  of  acknowledging  such  a  liable- 
ness  to  failure  in  the  measures  of  providence  is  unaccount- 
able, w^hen  God  declares  his  own  government  of  the  Jews, 
under  the  theocracy,  to  have  failed  of  its  end.  '  In  vain 
have  I  smitten  them,  they  have  refused  to  receive  correc- 
tion.' Jer.  ii.  30.  The  word  of  God  distinctly  and  ex- 
pressly recognizes  the  same  liableness  to  failure  in  the 
great  measure  of  atonement.  Are  you  sure  that  it  is  not 
attachment  to  system  rather  than  attachment  to  the  truth 

ment.  But  this  is  a  correct  statement,  it  appears  to  us,  of  the  doc- 
trine, as  held  by  those  (if  they  are  consistent)  who,  in  connection 
with  the  New-school  view  of  atonement,  adopt  also  the  new  theory 
concerning  the  character  and  government  of  God. 

16 


182  OLD    AND    NEW    THEOLOGY. 

that  makes  you  hesitate  to  avow  it  ?"  pp.  97,  168.  Quere. 
If  GocVs  "plan"  or  "experiment,"  or  "measure  of  atone- 
ment," is  liable  to  failure;  and  if  it  does  fail  in  numer- 
ous instances,  as  Mr.  Jenkyn  intimates,  and  elsewhere 
admits,  what  security  have  we  that  it  will  not  fail  alto- 
gether ?  What  if  it  should  happen,  that  when  "  submitted 
to  the  acceptance  of  free  agents,"  they  should  all  object 
to  it,  and  refuse  to  comply  with  its  conditions  !  Has  God 
power  to  control  the  exercise  of  their  free  agency  and 
persuade  them  to  change  their  minds  ?  or  may  they  not, 
in  despite  of  his  mightiest  influence,  persist  in  rejecting 
Christ,  and  so  despoil  him  of  his  mediatorial  reward  ? 

5.  The  Old  Theology  arrays  the  believer  in  the  robe 
of  Christ's  righteousness ;  which  being  imputed  to  him 
and  received  by  faith,  is  the  ground  of  his  justification 
before  God.  "  This  is  his  name  whereby  he  shall  be 
called.  The  Lord  our  Righteousness."  Jer.  xxiii.  6. 
"And  be  found  in  him,  not  having  mine  own  righteous- 
ness, which  is  of  the  law,  but  that  which  is  through  the 
faith  of  Christ,  the  righteousness  of  God  by  faith."  Phil, 
iii.  9.  "And  to  her  [the  Lamb's  wife,  the  Church,]  was 
granted,  that  she  should  be  arrayed  in  fine  linen,  clean 
and  white :  for  the  fine  linen  is  the  righteousness  of 
saints."  Kev.  xix.  8.  "You  have  here,"  says  Henry, 
"  a  description  of  the  bride,  how  she  appeared ;  in  fine 
linen,  clean  and  white,  which  is  the  righteousness  of 
saints ;  in  the  robes  of  Christ's  righteousness,  both  im- 
puted for  justification,  and  imparted  for  sanctification." 

The  New  Theology  discards  the  doctrine  of  imputed 
righteousness,  and  maintains  that  the  believer's  faith, 
being  an  act  which  God  approves,  and  which  leads  to 
other  holy  acts,  is  reckoned  to  him  for  righteousness ;  and 


OLD'AND    NEW    TH-EOLOGY.  183 

in  consequence  of  it  God  pardons  his  sin  and  receives  him 
into  favour.  "Faith,"  says  Mr.  Finney,  "is  the  ap- 
pointed instrument  of  our  justification,  because  it  is  the 
natural  instrument  of  sanctification.  It  is  the  instru- 
ment of  bringing  us  back  to  obedience,  and  therefore  is 
designated  as  the  means  of  obtaining  the  blessings  of  that 
return.  It  is  not  imputed  to  us  by  an  arbitrary  act,  for 
what  it  is  not,  but  for  what  it  is,  as  the  foundation  of  all 
real  obedience  to  God.  This  is  the  reason  why  faith  is 
made  the  medium  through  which  pardon  comes.  It  is 
simply  set  down  to  us  for  what  it  really  is ;  because  it 
first  leads  us  to  obey  God  from  a  principle  of  love  to  him." 
— Lectures  to  Pi^ofessing  Christians,  p.  221. 

Which  of  these  doctrines  is  more  calculated  to  humble 
the  creature  and  to  honour  Christ  ?  "If  faith  itself  is 
our  justifying  righteousness,  then  it  justifies  as  a  work, 
as  truly  as  any  other  works  could;  and"  ...  "if  a  man 
is  justified  on  account  of  the  act  of  believing,  and  that 
act  he  can  perform  by  the  power  of  free  will,  he  has  as 
much  ground  of  boasting  as  he  could  possibly  have,  if  he 
had  been  justified  by  other  works." — Dr.  Alexander. 

6.  The  Old  Theology  places  the  sinner  at  the  thresh- 
old of  sovereign  mercy,  a  dependent  though  guilty  sup- 
pliant for  grace  and  salvation.  The  New  gives  him  suffi- 
cient ability  to  do  all  that  God  requires  of  him,  without 
divine  aid.  In  a  review  of  Watson's  Institutes  in  the 
Christian  Spectator ,  are  found  the  following  :  "  He  [Mr. 
Watson]  repeatedly  speaks  of  the  power  of  the  will,  by 
which  he  intends,  of  course,  its  ^  gracious  ability'  before 
the  fall,  as  being  lost  by  Adam,  '  for  himself  and  for  his 
descendants.'  "  .  .  .  .  "Admitting  it  to  be  true  in  Adam's 
case,  that  by  sinning  he  was  shorn  of  his  power  to  obey 


184  OLD    AND'  NEW    THEOLOGY. 

God,  what  has  this  to  do  with  his  posterity  ?  The  prin- 
ciple assumed  in  the  argument,  renders  it  impossible  that 
their  moral  agency  should  be  unhinged,  until  they  exist 
and  sin ;  therefore  Adam's  sin  could  have  no  more  tend- 
ency to  destroy  their  poAver  to  choose  good,  or  to  set  their 
teeth  on  edge,  than  it  had  to  produce  the  same  effects 
upon  Satan  and  his  apostate  host."  ....  *' We  should 
like  to  know,  whether  the  admirers  of  Mr.  Watson  believe 
it  impossible  for  God  to  create  a  being,  possessing  in  him- 
self the  ability  to  choose  good  and  be  holy,  without  the 
gift  of  the  Spirit  ?  and  if  so,  where  is  his  omnipotence  ? 
If  it  is  admitted  that  he  can  create  such  a  being,  we  ask 
whether  the  principles  of  divine  government  do  not  fully 
demonstrate,  that  man  is  such  a  being  ?  If  he  is  not,  is 
God's  government  adapted  to  him  ?  What  notion  can  be 
formed  of  a  subject  of  moral  government,  who  is  desti- 
tute of  moral  liberty  ?  or  in  other  words,  who,  in  every 
instance  of  obedience  or  disobedience,  does  not  act  with 
inherent  power  to  the  contrary  choice?"*  —  Christian 
Spectator,  1835,  pp.  376,  377. 

7.  The  Old  Theology  makes  regeneration  a  radical 
change — a  change  in  the  disposition  and  temper  of  the 
sinner,  as  well  as  in  his  acts.  The  New  regards  it  as 
merely  giving  a  different  direction  to  our  constitutional 
desires ;  but  appears  to  make  little  or  no  difference  be- 
tween the  principles  of  action,  in  converted  and  uncon- 
verted men.  They  differ  only  as  to  the  "end  of  pursuit." 
In  reference  to  a  sentiment  advanced  by  Dr.  Griffin,  that 
the  sinner  has  no  taste  for  holiness,  and  therefore  cannot 

*  Concerning  the  power  of  contrary  choice,  see  Dr.  Beecher's 
Views,  and  Dr.  Harvey's  remarks  upon  them  in  Chapter  vii. 


OLD    AND    NEW    THEOLOGY.  185 

be  regenerated  by  motives,  Mr.  Gilbert  remarks,  ^^  The 
impenitent  sinner  has  no  '  taste'  for  conviction  ;  his  un- 
holy temper  is  as  really  opposed  to  truth  as  to  holiness; 
and  this  philosophy  would  make  it  as  impossible  to  con- 
vict as  to  convert  him ;  to  sanctify  as  to  regenerate  him. 
The  unconverted  man  has  no  '  taste'  for  conviction,  nor 
the  converted  man  for  more  sanctification."  Mark, 
"  The  unconverted  man  has  no  taste  for  conviction,  nor 
the  converted  man  for  more  sanctification !"  What  then 
is  the  difference  between  the  taste  or  temper,  or  disposi- 
tion of  an  impenitent  sinner,  and  a  child  of  God  ?  For 
aught  we  can  perceive,  they  are  precisely  the  same. 

8.  The  Old  Theology  gives  honour  to  Christ  and  the 
Holy  Spirit — the  New  has  a  tendency  to  throw  them, 
particularly  the  latter,  into  the  shade.  "  You  see  (says 
Mr.  Finney)  how  unphilosophical  it  is,  while  pressing  the 
sinner  to  submission,  to  divert  his  mind  and  turn  his 
attention  to  the  subject  of  the  Spirit's  influence.  While 
his  attention  is  directed  to  that  subject,  his  submission  is 
impossible."  —  Sermons  on  Important  Subjects^  p.  61. 
Of  course,  those  who  would  be  instrumental  in  converting 
sinners,  must  say  little  or  nothing  about  the   Spirit.* 

*  We  have  in  our  possession  a  written  statement,  communicated 
to  us  by  a  very  respectable  minister,  which  affords  another  illus- 
tration of  this  sentiment.  Says  he,  "  In  the  summer  of  1832,  while 
travelling  in  the  valley  of  the  Mississippi,  I  spent  a  few  weeks  in 

the  city  of ,  and  gave  assistance,  as  I  was  able,  by  request  of 

the  pastor  in  church  of  that  place.      Unusual  attention   to 

religion  existed  when  I  arrived,  and  continued  for  some  time.  A 
strong  tendency  was  manifested  both  to  new  doctrines  and  new 
measures.  One  evening  when  on  the  way  to  the  church  with  the 
pastor,  where  I  had  engaged  to  preach,  he  requested  I  should  say 
nothing  in  my  preaching,  concerning  the  influences  of  the  Spirit, 

16* 


186  OLD    AND    NEW    THEOLOGY. 

And  it  is  true,  as  a  matter  of  fact,  that  the  class  of 
preachers  to  which  we  now  refer,  say  almost  as  little 
about  Christ  as  about  the  Spirit.  They  preach  much 
about  submitting  to  God ;  but  they  seldom  exhibit  the 
second  person  of  the  Trinity,  in  his  mediatorial  character, 
and  the  duty  of  embracing  him  as  a  Saviour.  The  apos- 
tolic direction,  "Believe  in  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ,"  is 
exchanged  for  a  phraseology  which  is  calculated  to  con- 
vey the  impression  that  conversion  consists  in  the  mere 
choice  of  God  as  a  moral  Governor.  This  indeed  is  Mr. 
Finney's  account  of  it.  "  It  [a  change  of  heart]  is  a 
change  in  the  choice  of  a  Supreme  Ruler."  .  .  .  "The 
world  is  divided  into  two  great  political  parties ;  the  dif- 
ference between  them  is,  that  one  party  choose  Satan  as 
the  God  of  this  world ;"  .  .  .  "  the  other  party  choose 
Jehovah  for  their  Governor."  Jesus  Christ,  as  a  distinct 
person  in  the  Godhead,  and  faith  in  him  as  our  Redeemer, 
appear  to  have  little  to  do  in  the  process.* 

as  he  had  new  views  on  repentance.  He  did  not  deny  the  work  of 
the  Spirit,  but  thought  it  should  not  be  preached.  He  -was  then, 
and  still  remains  a  leading  member  of  his  Synod."  To  this  we 
will  add  the  following : 

A  former  student  of  Dr.  Taylor  has  informed  us,  verbally,  that 
he  heard  Dr.  Taylor  advance  the  sentiment  in  two  different  ser- 
mons, "  that  sinners  must  act  in  the  work  of  conversion  just  as  if 
there  was  no  Holy  Ghost."  To  prove  the  truth  of  his  remark,  he 
alluded  to  Acts  xix.  2.  "  We  have  not  so  much  as  heard  whether 
there  be  any  Holy  Ghost."  He  had  heard,  also,  through  others, 
of  Dr.  Taylor's  advancing  the  same  sentiment  at  different  times; 
and  he  believed  he  was  in  the  habit  of  doing  it  where  he  preached 
a  course  of  revival  sermons. 

*  In  the  summer  of  1834,  we  heard  a  sermon  from  Professor 
,  of  New  Haven.    We  do  not  recollect  that  there  was  a  sen- 


OLD    AND    NEW    THEOLOGY.  187 

9.  The  Old  Theology  honours  the  Holy  Scriptures,  hy 
drawing  its  doctrines  and  proofs  from  this  source  alone, 
without  calling  in  the  aid  of  philosophy.  The  New 
resorts  to  the  latter,  in  order  to  obtain  its  first  principles ; 
and  then  interprets  the  former  so  as  to  make  them  accord 
with  these  philosophical  opinions.  This  remark,  we  are 
aware,  may  be  called  in  question.  The  leaders  in  the 
New-school  party  have  had  much  to  say  concerning  the 
^^ facts"  of  Scripture,  and  have  charged  their  brethren 
of  the  Old-school  with  resorting  to  philosophy.  But  a 
little  investigation  of  this  subject  will  show  the  statement 
first  made  to  be  strictly  true.  In  Mr.  Finney's  two  ser- 
mons on  the  duty  of  sinners  to  change  their  own  hearts, 
he  uses  the  words  philosophy,  philosophical,  unphilosophi- 
cal,  &c.,  at  least  fourteen  times.  He  tells  us  about  "  the 
philosophy  of  conversion,"  '^  the  philosophy  of  self-ex- 
amination," and  "the  philosophy  of  specical  efibrts  to 
promote  revivals  of  religion."  Every  step  in  the  change 
is  brought  to  the  test  of  philosophy  ;  and  the  failure  of 
the  sinner  to  submit  to  God  is  ascribed  in  one  instance  to 
his  not  understanding  the  philosophy  of  the  process. 
*'  He,  therefore,  (says  he)  who  does  not  understand  the 
philosophy  of  this  ;  who  does  not  understand  the  use  and 
power  of  attention^  the  use  and  power  of  conscience,  and 

timent  in  it  to  which  we  took  exceptions ;  and  yet  there  was  such 
an  absence  of  what  a  Christian  desires  and  expects  to  find,  in  a  ser- 
mon which  professed  to  teach  us  how  we  may  approach  God  with 
acceptance,  as  to  afford  too  much  reason  for  the  observation  of  a 
pious  and  intelligent  lady  soon  after,  viz  :  "  that  he  kept  Christ  and 
the  Holy  Spirit  so  much  out  of  view,  she  could  not  help  thinking 
that  he  was  a  deist."  This  lady  had  not  yet  heard  the  name  or 
residence  of  the  preacher  ;  and  of  course  could  not  have  been  influ- 
enced by  any  considerations  of  this  kind. 


188  OLD    AND    NEW    THEOLOGY. 

upon  what  to  fix  his  mind,  to  lead  him  to  a  right  decision, 
will  naturally  complain  that  he  does  not  know  how  to 
submit."  The  Scriptures  are  also  brought  forward  and 
compared  by  this  rule.  When  he  [Joshua]  assembled  the 
people  of  Israel  and  laid  their  duty  before  them,  and  said, 
*  choose  you  this  day  whom  ye  will  serve,'  he  did  not 
unphilosophically  remind  them  at  the  same  time  of  their 
dependence  upon  the  Spirit  of  God."  Thus  we  have 
philosophical  preaching,  philosophical  protracted  meet- 
ings, philosophical  self-examination,  philosophical  sub- 
mission, and  philosophical  conversion.  May  not  the 
result  of  the  whole  be  a  merely  philosophical  Christian  ? 
Other  proofs  which  might  be  adduced,  from  different  wri- 
ters, we  must  leave  to  those  who  desire  to  examine  this 
subject. 

It  may  possibly  be  said  that  we  have  given  more  pro- 
minence to  Mr.  Finney  than  was  proper ;  since  he  goes 
further  than  most  of  his  brethren,  and  is  not,  therefore, 
a  fair  specimen  of  their  views.  We  admit  he  has  ex- 
pressed himself  more  freely  than  perhaps  any  one  else ; 
but  if  we  compare  the  quotations  made  from  various 
authors,  we  shall  perceive  they  all  belong  to  the  same 
family.  It  has  been  our  aim  both  in  our  statements  and 
quotations,  to  exhibit  the  doctrines  of  the  New  Theology, 
just  as  they  are,  without  the  least  exaggeration.  For 
this  purpose  our  extracts  from  New-school  authors  have 
been  numerous,  and  sufficiently  extended  as  to  length,  to 
give  a  correct  view  of  their  sentiments.*  But  if  it  can 
be  made  to  appear  that  we  have  misrepresented  their 

*  In  the  succeeding  chapters,  not  found  in  the  first  two  editions, 
additional  facts  are  given  touching  their  views — also  other  impor- 
tant matters. 


OLD    AND    NEW    THEOLOGY.  189 

views  in  a  single    important    point,  we  shall  cheerfully 
rectify  the  mistake. 


PERFECTIONISM  OF  MR.  FINNEY. 

There  is  one  extreme  into  which  Mr.  Finney  has 
fallen,  that  we  by- no  means  charge  upon  the  New-school, 
as  a  body — and  we  have  therefore  as  yet  entirely  omitted 
it.  We  mean  his  pe?/(?c^/onzs??2.  In  this  we  presume  he 
has  few  followers.  We  will  however  bestow  upon  it  a 
little  attention,  that  it  may  serve  as  a  beacon  to  admonish 
those  who  have  embarked  on  the  voyage  of  religious 
discovery. 

In  his  ''Lectures  to  professing  Christians,"  he  has  two 
on  Christian  Perfection ;  and  he  adverts  to  the  subject 
in  several  others.  He  defines  perfection  in  the  following 
words:  "It  is  to  love  the  Lord  our  God  with  all  our 
heart  and  soul  and  mind  and  strength,  and  to  love  our 
neighbour  as  ourselves."  This  he  maintains  is  attainable 
in  the  present  life.  "  1.  God  wills  it.  2.  All  the  pro- 
mise* and  prophecies  of  God  that  respect  the  sanctifica- 
tion  of  believers  in  this  world,  are  to  be  understood  of 
course  of  their  perfect  sanctification.  3.  Perfect  sancti- 
fication  is  the  great  blessing  promised  throughout  the 
Bible.  4.  The  perfect  sanctification  of  believers  is  the 
very  object  for  which  the  Holy  Spirit  is  promised.  5. 
If  it  is  not  a  practicable  duty  to  be  perfectly  holy  in  this 
world,  then  it  will  follow  that  the  devil  has  so  completely 
accomplished  his  design  in  corrupting  mankind,  that 
Jesus  Christ  is  at  a  fault,  and  has  no  way  to  sanctify  his 
people,  but  to  take  them  out  of  the  world.     6.  If  perfect 


190  OLD    AND    NEW    THEOLOGY. 

sanctification  Is  not  attainable  in  this  world,  it  must  be, 
either  from  a  want  of  motives  in  the  gospel,  or  a  want  of 
Bufficient  power  in  the  Spirit  of  God." 

In  another  lecture  he  appears  to  teach  perfection  in 
"knowledge  as  well  as  in  holiness  ;  amounting  to  an  illu- 
mination little  short  of  divine  inspiration.  "  The  man- 
ner in  which  the  Spirit  of  God  does  this,"  says  he,  i.  e. 
communicates  ideas  to  the  mind  without  the  use  of  words, 
"  is  what  we  can  never  know  in  this  world.  But  the  fact 
is  undeniable,  that  he  can  reach  the  mind  without  the  use 
of  words,  and  can  put  our  minds  in  possession  of  the 
ideas  themselves,  of  which  the  types,  or  figures,  or  words, 
of  the  human  teacher,  are  only  the  signs  or  imperfect 
representatives."  ..."  The  needed  influences  of  the  Spi- 
rit of  God  may  be  possessed  by  all  men  freely  under  the 
gospel."  .  .  .  .  "  They  [ministers]  should  not  attempt  to 
explain  passages  of  which  they  are  not  confident  they 
have  been  taught  the  meaning  by  the  Holy  Spirit.  It  is 
presumption.  And  they  need  not  do  it,  for  they  may 
always  have  the  teachings  of  the  Spirit  by  asking."  .  .  . 
"  This  is  applicable  both  to  preachers  and  to  teachers  in 
Sabbath  schools  and  Bible  classes."  .  .  .  "Will  you  lay 
your  hearts  open  to  God,  and  not  give  him  rest,  till  he 
has  filled  you  with  divine  knowledge  ?" 

In  other  lectures  he  goes  further  still,  and  maintains, 
if  we  understand  his  language,  that  when  the  Christian 
has  thus  given  himself  up  entirely  to  Christ,  to  be  taught 
and  governed  by  him,  he  becomes  so  identified  with  Christ, 
that  his  spirit  and  Christ's  Spirit  are,  morally  considered, 
one  —  Christ  becomes  responsible  for  his  acts;  and  of 
course  he  not  only  ceases  from  sin,  but  he  canriot  commit 
sin.     Whatever  he  does,  Christ  is  responsible  for  it.     This 


OLD    AND    NEW    THEOLOGY.  191 

lie  calls  entering  Into  rest.  "  When  one  ceases  from  his 
own  works,  he  so  perfectly  gives  up  his  own  interest  and 
his  own  will,  and  places  himself  so  perfectly  under  the 
dominion  and  guidance  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  that  whatever 
he  does  is  done  by  the  impulse  of  the  Spirit  of  God."  .  . 
"  They  are  in  one  sense  our  works,  because  we  do  them 
by  our  voluntary  agency.  Yet  in  another  sense  they  are 
his  works,  because  he  is  the  moving  cause  of  all."  .... 
"  He  [Christ]  is  just  as  absolutely  your  sanctification,  as 
your  justification.  If  you  depend  upon  him  for  sanctifi- 
cation, he  will  no  more  let  you  sin  than  he  will  let  you 
go  to  hell."  ..."  The  reputation  of  the  wife  is  wholly 
united  to  that  of  her  husband,  so  that  his  reputation  is 
hers,  and  her  reputation  is  his.  What  affects  her  char- 
acter affects  his ;  and  what  affects  his  character  affects 
hers.  Their  reputation  is  one,  their  interests  are  one. 
So  with  the  church  ;  whatever  concerns  the  church  is  just 
as  much  the  interest  of  Christ,  as  if  it  was  personally  his 
own  matter."  ...  "If  any  actions  or  civil  liability  come 
against  the  wife,  the  husband  is  responsible.  If  the  wife 
has  committed  a  trespass,  the  husband  is  answerable.  It 
is  his  business  to  guide  and  govern  her,  and  her  business 
to  obey,  and  if  he  does  not  restrain  her  from  breaking 
the  laws,  he  is  responsible."  .  .  .  "In  like  manner,  Jesus 
Christ  is  Lord  over  his  church,  and  if  he  does  not  actually 
restrain  his  church  from  sin,  he  has  it  to  answer  for."  .  . 
"It  is  his  business  to  take  care  of  the  church,  and  con- 
trol her,  and  keep  her  from  sin ;  and  for  every  sin  of 
every  member,  Jesus  Christ  is  responsible,  and  must 
answer."  ..."  0  !  if  believers  would  only  throw  them- 
selves wholly  on  Christ,  and  make  him  responsible,  by 


192  OLD    AND    NEW    THEOLOGY. 

placing  themselves  entirely  at  his  control,   they  would 
know  his  power  to  save,  and  would  live  without  sin." 

We  have  given  these  extracts  at  some  length,  that 
those  who  have  not  access  to  his  Lectures,  may  ohtain  a 
full  view  of  his  sentiments.  It  is  scarcely  necessary  to 
remark,  that  the  sentences  last  quoted  are  Antinomian, 
The  history  of  Antinomianism  does  not  furnish  many 
expressions,  more  licentious  in  their  tendency  than  these. 
This  heresy  is  more  frequently  the  result  of  an  abuse  of 
the  doctrines  of  grace ;  but  in  the  present  instance,  it 
appears  to  have  originated  in  an  opposite  cause,  viz. :  in 
those  views  of  human  ability,  which  render  grace  in  a 
measure  superfluous.*  "There  is,"  says  he,  "no  more 
moral  inability  to  be  perfectly/  holy,  than  there  is  to  be 
holy  at  all."  On  the  same  principle,  therefore,  that  he 
could  preach  to  the  sinner  the  practicability  of  changing 
his  own  heart,  he  might  argue  that  the  Christian  can 
arrive  at  perfect  holiness  in  this  life.  He  actually  adopts 
the  same  mode  of  reasoning  in  both  cases.  It  is  there- 
fore very  natural  to  conclude,  that  the  frequent  discussion 

*  It  is  supposed  by  some  that  there  is  no  logical  connection  be- 
tween Mr.  Finney's  former  and  present  views — but  that  he  has  got 
upon  a  new  track.  Formerly,  as  one  observes,  "  he  left  Christ  .and 
the  Holy  Spirit  almost  out  of  view;  he  hardly  preached  the  gospel 
at  all ;  but  now  Christ  and  the  Holy  Spirit  are  everything.  He 
pushes  union  with  Christ,  imputation,  covenant  relation,  &c.,  into 
Antinomianism.''  The  only  connection,  he  says,  between  the  latter 
and  his  Pelagianism,  is  that  he  "is  a  fanatic  now  as  he  was  before." 
But  as  others  think  differently,  we  shall  state  the  probable  process 
by  which  it  is  supposed  he  was  led  into  these  errors.  Yet  whether 
they  are  the  "  logical  sequence"  of  his  former  views  or  not,  they 
furnish  an  instructive  lesson  to  those  who  are  disposed  to  counte- 
nance error. 


OLD    AND    NEW    THEOLOGY.  193 

of  the  subject  of  ability  in  reference  to  the  sinner,  hatl 
much  to  do  in  forming  his  opinions  with  regard  to  Chris- 
tian perfection.  Having  arrived  at  this  point,  he  applied 
his  ideas  of  perfection,  not  only  to  our  sanctification,  but 
to  all  our  relations  to  God.  In  a  lecture  from  the  text, 
"  Who  of  God  is  made  unto  us  wisdom,  and  righteousness, 
and  sanctification,  and  redemption ;"  he  considers  eaoft 
of  the  terms  a&  conveying  an  idea  equally  expressivw. 
Since  then,  according  to  the  views  which  h'^  had  pre- 
viously adopted,  sanctification  was  to  be  taken  as  imply 
ing  perfect  holiness,  the  perfectibility  of  wisdom  would 
seem  to  follow  as  a  consequence.  Hence  he  says  ia 
regard  to  this,  "As  he  [Christ]  ia  cLe  infinite  source  of 
wisdom,  how  can  it  be  said  that  he  is  made  unto  us  wisdom, 
unless  we  are  partakers  of  his  wisdom,  and  have  it  guar- 
antied to  us ;  so  that,  at  any  time,  if  we  trust  in  him, 
we  may  have  it  as  certainly,  and  in  any  degree  we  need, 
to  guide  us  as  infallibly,  as  if  we  had  it  originally  our- 
selves ?"  Thus  we  are  brought  into  the  field  of  fana- 
ticism. 

The  only  condition  required  in  order  to  obtain  either 
wisdom  or  sanctification,  is  faith.  "  The  act  of  the 
mind,"  says  he,  "that  thus  throws  the  soul  into  the  hand 
of  Christ  for  sanctification,  is  faith.  Nothing  is  wanting, 
but  for  the  mind  to  break  off  from  any  confidence  in  it- 
self, and  to  give  itself  up  to  him,  to  be  led  and  controlled 
by  him  absolutely."  Then  Christ  assumes  the  responsi- 
bility ;  he  undertakes  to  do  all  for  him  that  he  needs  ;  he 
becomes  accountable  for  his  conduct.  Says  he,  "  Until 
an  individual  receives  Christ,  he  does  not  cease  from  his 
own  works.  The  moment  he  does  that,  by  this  very  act 
he  throws  the  entire  responsibility  upon  Christ.  The  mo- 
17 


194  OLD    AND    NEW    THEOLOGY. 

ment  the  mind  does  fairly  yield  itself  up  to  Christ,  the 
responsibility  comes  upon  him,  just  as  the  person  who 
undertakes  to  conduct  the  blind  man  is  responsible  for 
his  safe  conduct.  The  believer  by  the  act  of  faith  pledges 
Christ  for  his  obedience  and  sanctification.  By  giving 
himself  up  to  Christ,  all  the  veracity  of  the  Godhead  is 
put  at  stake,  that  he  shall  be  led  aright,  or  made  holy." 
Here  we  have  the  final  result  of  the  whole  process.  By 
the  proper  exercise  of  our  free  will,  we  can  first  change 
our  own  hearts,  or  in  other  words,  put  forth  the  "  act" 
of  saving  faith  upon  Jesus  Christ.  By  the  proper  ex- 
ercise of  the  same  free  will,  we  can  put  forth  a  stronger 
"act"  of  faith,  and  make  him  our  wisdom  and  sanctifica- 
tion : — our  wisdom,  in  such  a  sense,  that  he  will  "  guide 
us  infallibly,  as  if  we  had  it  originally  ourselves  :" — and 
our  sanctification,  so  entire  and  absolute,  that  Christ  be- 
comes responsible  for  our  conduct,  and  "if  he  does  not 
restrain  us  from  sin,  he  has  it  to  answer  for." 

In  the  March  number  of  the  Literary  and  Theological 
Review  for  the  year  1838,  there  is  an  able  article  on  this 
subject,  from  which  we  will  make  the  following  extract. 
"  In  the  works  before  us  [referring  to  Mr.  Finney's  Ser- 
mons and  Lectures,]  we  have  an  authentic  genealogy  of 
a  family  of  errors.  We  are  not  obliged,  as  in  other  in- 
stances, to  trace  them  through  successive  generations  of 
men.  They  are  all  found  in  the  same  mind,  and  Pelagi- 
anism,  as  contained  in  the  preceding  extracts,  is  the  ven- 
erable ancestor  of  them  all.  From  his  infancy  it  was 
remarked  that  he  was  an  uncommon  child.  Unlike  other 
children,  he  was  by  nature  neither  'sinful  nor  holy.' 
Unhappily,  however,  very  soon  after  his  birth,  he  'fell 
into  a  state  of  supreme  selfishness,'  from  which  even  the 


OLD    AND    NEW    THEOLOGY.  195 

*  physical  power  of  God'  could  not  extricate  him.  But 
lie  had  rare  abilities,  and  a  ^  giant  strength'  of  will,  which 
he  could  hardly  refrain  from  calling  'the  strength  of 
Omnipotence.'  And  therefore,  he  always  believed  him- 
self to  be  one  of  those  who  could  be  recovered  '  with  the 
wisest  amount  of  moral  influence.'  He  had  elevated 
notions  of  human  virtue,  and  would  suffer  no  change  to 
be  made  in  his  condition,  which  was  not  produced  by  'his 
own  act.'  He  was  willing,  indeed,  that  the  Holy  Spirit 
should  operate  on  him,  provided  it  were  only  as  an  earthly 
advocate  acts  on  a  jury.  He  was  willing  that  '  motives 
should  be  gathered  from  all  worlds  and  poured  in  a  focal 
blaze  on  his  mind.'  He  was  anxious  to  receive  good 
counsel  from  his  friends,  and  reverently  to  hear  divine 
truth ;  but  the  change  from  '  supreme  selfishness'  he  de- 
clared to  be  his  own  '  appropriate  work ;'  and  he  was  at 
length  accustomed  to  say,  that  he  had  effected  it  by  '  his 
own  act.'  It  was  natural  to  suppose,  that  the  theologi- 
cal children  of  such  a  system  would  have  some  remark- 
able characteristics.  In  Pelagius  and  Coelestius  it  had 
produced  Perfectionism,  and  there  was  reason  to  fear  that 
in  the  mind  of  Mr.  Finney  it  would  generate  the  same 
progeny.  In  various  parts  of  the  land  the  system  had 
been  earnestly  inculcated.  Its  most  sagacious  disciples 
were  beginning  to  declare  themselves  to  'be  perfect,'  to 
have  '  rolled  the  responsibility  of  their  future  and  eternal 
obedience  on  an  everlasting  arm ;'  to  receive  '  immediate 
communications  from  God;'  to  be  '  personally  united  to 
him,'  and  to  have  '  entered  into  rest.'  " 

"  These  heresies  were  early  demonstrated  to  have  had 
their  origin  in  the  system  itself.  As  Mr.- Finney  had 
been  the  apostle  of  this  system  in  these  latter  days,  it 


196  OLD    AND    NEW    THEOLOGY. 

TVas  intimated  that  his  doctrines,  as  inculcated  in  his 
preaching  and  bj  the  press,  had  tended  to  produce  these 
impieties.  This  view  of  the  subject  was  indignantly 
repelled  even  by  the  candid  ones  among  his  followers. 
The  thought  that  his  doctrines  had  produced  such  results, 
they  could  not  for  a  moment  entertain.  Although  others 
had  no  doubt  that  Mr.  Finney  was  the  true  parent  of 
Perfectionism,  they  had  more  opinion  of  his  caution,  than 
to  suppose  he  could  soon  be  induced  openly  to  own  and 
adopt  it.  But,  to  the  amazement  of  all,  he  now  comes 
forth,  bringing  with  him  for  induction  into  the  church, 
the  doctrine  of  the  perfection  of  the  saints  in  this  life, 
of  the  responsibility  of  Christ  for  his  people,  of  imme- 
diate communications  to  them  from  God,  and  of  their 
entrance  into  rest  even  in  this  world.  These  last  views 
were  not  developed  till  he  had  abandoned  the  Presbyte- 
rian Church.  Ever  since  their  publication,  it  is  almost 
inconceivable  by  those  who  have  heard  of  him  chiefly  as 
a  promoter  of  revivals,  and  have  been  unwilling  to  listen 
to  the  notes  of  warning,  so  long  honestly  and  responsively 
sounded  by  individuals — it  is  almost  inconceivable,  that 
he  has  inculcated  these  fanatical  doctrines.  Even  the 
Christian  Spectator,  though  it  fears  '  he  may  be  liable  to 
misconstruction,  and  injure  the  consciences  of  many  weak 
and  pious  persons,'  declares,  'we  do  not  believe  he 
means  anything  more  than  we  should  fully  admit — the 
possibility  and  duty  of  obedience  to  God  in  all  things 
commanded.'  But  this  view  of  his  meaning  it  is  impos- 
sible to  sustain,  either  by  individual  sentences,  or  the 
evident  design  of  his  Lectures  on  these  subjects.  His 
errors  are  written  so  legibly,  that  he  who  runs  may  read. 
Mr.  Finney  now  stands  before  the  community  as  a  prac- 


OLD    AND    NEW    THEOLOGY.  197 

tical  illustration  of  tlie  effects  of  rejecting  the  doctrine, 
that  hiunan  nature  is  depraved:  and  of  believing,  that 
in  regeneration  and  sanctification,  the  work  of  the  Spirit 
is  confined  chiefly  to  the  understanding." 


CHAPTER  X. 

THE    MEASURES    ADOPTED    BY   THE    GENERAL    ASSEMBLY    FOR    REMOVING 
THESE  ERRORS  FROM    THE  PRESBYTERIAN  CHURCH. 

On  the  supposition  that  the  errors  specified  in  the  pre- 
ceding chapters  were  prevalent  in  any  portion  of  the 
Presbyterian  Church,  it  is  no  wonder  that  many  should 
feel  alarmed.  Some  of  these  doctrines  had  been  made 
the  ground  of  discipline  at  different  times  before  this 
period.  In  1798,  the  case  of  Rev.  H.  Balch  came  before 
the  Assembly,  by  way  of  reference  from  the  Synod  of 
the  Carolinas.  The  following  is  a  part  of  the  minutes 
of  the  Assembly  on  this  subject :  "  With  regard  to  his 
doctrine  of  original  sin,  it  is  to  be  observed,  that  he  is 
erroneous  in  representing  personal  corruption  as  not  de- 
rived from  Adam ;  making  Adam's  sin  to  be  imputed  to 
his  posterity,  in  consequence  of  a  corrupt  nature  already/ 
possessed,  and  derived  from,  we  know  not  what ;  thus  in 
effect  setting  aside  the  idea  of  Adam's  being  the  federal 
head,  or  representative,  of  his  descendants,  and  the  whole 
doctrine  of  the  covenant  of  works." 

"  It  is  also  manifest  that  Mr.  B.  is  greatly  erroneous, 
in  asserting  that  the  formal  cause  of  a  believer's  justifi- 
cation is  the  imputation  of  the  fruits  a7id  effects  of 
17* 


198  OLD    AND    NEW    THEOLOGY. 

Christ's  righteousness,  and  not  that  righteousness  itself ; 
because  righteousness,  and  that  alone,  is  the  formal  de- 
mand of  the  law,  and  consequently  the  sinner's  violation 
of  the  divine  law  can  be  pardoned  only  by  virtue  of  the 
Redeemer's  perfect  righteousness  being  imputed  to  him 
and  reckoned  as  his.  It  is  also  not  true  that  the  benefits 
of  Christ's  righteousness  are,  with  strict  propriety,  said 
to  be  imputed  at  all,  as  these  benefits  floiv  to,  and  are 
possessed  hy,  the  believer,  as  a  consequence  of  his  justi- 
fication and  having  an  interest  in  the  infinite  merits  of  the 
Saviour." 

In  1810,  a  work  of  the  Rev.  William  C.  Davis,  en- 
titled the  "Gospel  Plan,"  came  before  the  Assembly,  by 
an  overture  from  the  Synod  of  the  Carolinas.  Among 
the  doctrines  contained  in  the  book,  of  an  exceptionable 
character,  and  which  the  Assembly  condemned,  are  the 
following :  "  That  the  active  obedience  of  Christ  consti- 
tutes no  part  of  that  righteousness  by  which  a  sinner  is 
justified;"  that  "God  could  not  make  Adam,  or  any 
other  creature,  either  holy  or  unholy  ;"  and  that  "  if  God 
has  to  plant  all  the  principal  parts  of  salvation  in  a  sin- 
ner's heart,  to  enable  him  to  believe,  the  gospel  plan  is 
quite  out  of  his  reach,  and  consequently  does  not  suit 
his  case ;  and  it  must  be  impossible  for  God  to  condemn 
a  man  for  unbelief,  for  no  just  law  condemns  or  crimi- 
nates any  person  for  not  doing  what  he  cannot  do." 
Concerning  these  doctrines  the  Assembly  resolved  that 
they  are  "  contrary  to  the  Confession  of  Faith  of  our 
church." — Assembly's  Digest,  pp.  130,  145-147. 

The  first  of  these  cases  was  adjudicated  ten  years,  and 
the  second  twenty-two  years,  after  the  organization  of 
the  General  Assembly ;  and  they  show  that  for  twenty- 


OLD    AND    NEW    THEOLOGY.  199 

two  years  after  that  event,  those  doctrines  which  led  to 
the  division  of  the  church  in  1837,  were  regarded  and 
treated  as  heretical  and  dangerous.  They  serve  also  as 
a  key  to  the  received  interpretation  of  the  Confession  of 
Faith  prior  to  that  period,  and  to  the  proper  understand- 
ing of  the  famous  * 'Adopting  Act"  of  1729. 

CHARACTER    OF   THE   ADOPTING   ACT. 

The  act  denominated  the  "Adopting  Act,"  which  was 
unanimously  agreed  to  by  the  Synod  of  Philadelphia,  in 
1729,  required  "  that  all  the  ministers  of  this  Synod,  or 
that  shall  hereafter  be  admitted  to  this  Synod,  shall  de- 
clare their  agreement  in  and  approbation  of  the  Confes- 
sion of  Faith,  with  the  Larger  and  Shorter  Catechisms 
of  the  Assembly  of  Divines  at  Westminster,  as  being,  in 
all  essential  and  necessary  articles,  good  forms  and  sound 
words,  and  systems  of  Christian  doctrine ;  and  [we]  do 
also  adopt  the  said  Confession  of  Faith  and  Catechisms 
as  the  confession  of  our  faith.  And  we  do  also  agree 
that  the  Presbyteries  within  our  bounds  shall  always  take 
care  not  to  admit  any  candidate  for  the  ministry  into  the 
exercise  of  the  sacred  functions,  but  who  declares  his 
agreement  in  opinion  with  all  essential  and  necessary 
articles  of  said  Confession,  either  by  subscribing  the  said 
Confession  of  Faith  and  Catechisms,  or  by  verbal  decla- 
ration of  his  assent  thereto,  as  such  minister  or  candidate 
shall  think  best.  And  in  case  any  minister  of  this  Synod, 
or  any  candidate  for  the  ministry,  shall  have  any  scruples 
with  regard  to  any  article  or  articles  of  said  Confession 
of  Faith  or  Catechisms,  he  shall,  at  the  time  of  his 
making  such  declaration,  declare  his  sentiments  to  the 


200  OLD    AND    NEW    THEOLOGY. 

Presbytery  or  Synod,  who  shall,  notwithstanding,  admit 
him  to  the  exercise  of  the  ministry  within  our  bounds, 
and  to  ministerial  communion,  if  either  the  Presbytery  or 
Synod  shall  judge  his  scruples  or  mistakes  to  be  only 
about  articles  not  essential  and  necessary  in  doctrine, 
worship,  or  government." 

This  provision  appears  to  be  understood  by  some  of  our 
New-school  brethren  as  giving  so  wide  a  latitude  for  di- 
versity of  sentiment,  that,  in  their  opinion,  it  was  only 
by  a  departure  from  the  design  and  spirit  of  that  instru- 
ment, and  the  introduction  into  the  church  of  a  narrow 
and  intolerant  spirit,  that  the  new  theology  was  not  allowed 
to  remain  quietly,  and  spread  itself  throughout  our  bounds. 
How  utterly  unfounded  this  opinion  is,  will  appear  from 
the  manner  in  which  the  Synod  carried  the  "Adopting 
Act"  into  effect.     On  the  same  day  in  which  it  was  passed, 
all  the  ministers  present,  except  one  who  was  not  then 
prepared,  but  who  subsequently  acceded  to  the  resolution, 
"  after  proposing  all  the  scruples  that  any  of  them  had  to 
make  against  any  articles  and  expressions  in  the  Confes- 
sion of  Faith,  and  Larger  and  Shorter  Catechisms  of  the 
Assembly  of  Divines  at  Westminster,  unanimously  agreed 
in  the  solution  of  those  scruples,  and  in  declaring  the 
said  Confession  and  Catechisms  to  be  the  confession  of 
their  faith,  excepting  only  some  clauses  in  the  twentieth 
and  twenty-third  chapters ;  concerning  which  clauses  the 
Synod  unanimously  declared  that  they  did  not  receive 
those  articles  in  any  such  sense  as  to  suppose  the  civil 
magistrate  hath  a  controlling  power  over  Synods,  with 
respect  to  the  exercise  of  their  ministerial  authority,  or 
power  to  persecute  any  for  their  religion,  or  in  any  sense 


OLD    AND    NEW    THEOLOGY.  201 

contrary  to  the  Protestant  succession  to  the  throne  of 
Great  Britain." 

The  following  year,  and  again  in  1736,  the  Synod 
adopted  a  resolution  explanatory  of  their  former  action. 
In  the  latter  they  say,  ''that  the  Synod  have  adopted 
and  still  do  adhere  to  the  Westminster  Confession,  Cate- 
chisms, and  Directory,  without  the  least  variation  or 
alteration."  .  .  .  "And  we  do  further  declare  this  was  our 
meaning  and  true  intent  in  our  first  adopting  of  the  said 
Confession." 

In  1741  a  schism  took  place,  by  which  two  Synods 
were  formed,  and  an  unhappy  alienation  existed  between 
them  for  seventeen  years.  During  this  separation  both 
parties  adopted  resolutions  to  the  effect  that  they  adhered 
"to  the  Westminster  Confession  of  Faith,  Catechisms, 
and  Directory,  without  the  least  variation  or  alteration," 
agreeably  to  the  action  of  the  Synod  in  1729 — and  neither 
party  charged  the  other  with  practising  or  desiring  any 
unwarranted  latitude  of  interpretation.  The  division  did 
not  originate  in  doctrinal  differences.  Hence,  when  the 
overture  was  made  for  a  re-union,  the  Synod  of  New  York 
say  to  the  Synod  of  Philadelphia,  "  We  esteem  mutual 
forbearance  a  duty,  since  we  all  profess  the  same  Con- 
fession of  Faith  and  Directory."  The  latter  Synod,  in 
reply  to  the  former,  employed  similar  language.  "  Upon 
these  terms  (viz.  the  terms  specified  in  their  letter)  we 
heartily  agree  with  the  Synod  of  New  York,  that  since 
we  profess  the  same  Confession  of  Faith  and  Directory 
for  worship,  all  our  former  differences  be  buried  in  per- 
petual oblivion."  Accordingly,  one  of  the  terms  of  union 
unanimously  adopted  by  the  two  bodies  was  the  following : 
"  Both  Synods  having  always  approved  and  received  the 


202  OLD    AND    NEW    THEOLOGY. 

Westminster  Confession  of  Faith,  Larger  and  Shorter 
Catechisms,  as  an  orthodox  and  excellent  system  of  Chris- 
tian doctrine,  founded  upon  the  word  of  God,  we  do  still 
receive  the  same  as  the  confession  of  our  faith,  and  also 
adhere  to  the  plan  of  worship,  government,  and  discipline, 
contained  in  the  Westminster  Directory :  strictly  enjoin- 
ing it  on  all  our  ministers  and  probationers  for  the  min- 
istry, that  they  preach  and  teach  according  to  the  form 
of  sound  words  in  the  said  Confession  and  Catechisms, 
and  avoid  and  oppose  all  errors  contrary  thereto." 

In  1786,  two  years  before  the  organization  of  the 
General  Assembly,  a  plan  of  union  was  proposed  be- 
tween the  Presbyterian,  Dutch,  and  Associate  Reformed 
Churches.  The  committee  on  the  part  of  the  Synod  of 
New  York  and  Philadelphia,  were  instructed  to  say,  that 
the  Synod  ''  adopt,  according  to  the  known  and  estab- 
lished meaning  of  terms,  the  Westminster  Confession  of 
Faith  as  the  confession  of  their  faith,  save  that  every 
candidate  for  the  gospel  ministry  is  permitted  to  except 
against  so  much  of  the  twenty-third  chapter  as  gives  au- 
thority to  the  civil  magistrate  in  matters  of  religion.'* 
For  a  full  account  of  the  Adopting  Act,  see  Hodge's 
Constitutional  History  of  the  Presbyterian  Church,  vol. 
i.,  chap.  iii. 

From  these  several  particulars,  it  is  very  evident  that 
the  liberty  granted  in  the  Adopting  Act,  to  any  minister 
or  candidate,  to  state  his  "  scruples  with  regard  to  any 
article  or  articles  of  the  Confession  of  Faith  and  Cate- 
chisms," and  that  he  should  be  admitted  "to  the  exercise 
of  the  ministry,"  if  either  the  Presbytery  or  Synod  shall 
judge  his  scruples  or  mistakes  to  be  only  about  articles 
not  essential  and  necessary  in  doctrine,  worship,  or  gov- 


OLD    AND    NEW    THEOLOGY.  203 

eminent,"  was  restricted  practically  to  a  very  few  things; 
and  that  with  regard  to  these  and  all  others,  the  scruples 
of  the  minister  or  candidate  were  not  to  be  confined  to 
his  own  breast,  nor  even  stated  in  general  terms,  but  par- 
ticularized before  the  Presbytery  or  Synod ;  and  that  his 
brethren  were  to  judge,  not  the  applicant  himself,  whether 
his  scruples  or  mistakes  were  a  valid  bar  to  his  reception 
as  a  member.  How  widely  different  from  this,  is  that 
mode  of  assenting  to  the  Confession  of  Faith,  which  pro- 
fesses to  receive  it  only  for  "substance  of  doctrine,"  and 
which  requires  of  the  candidate  no  statement  of  his 
"scruples"  to  the  Presbytery,  but  leaves  it  wholly  to  his 
own  decision  whether  they  are  such  as  are  "  essential  and 
necessary,"  or  otherwise.  It  is  evident,  from  the  cases 
adjudicated  by  the  Assembly  in  1798  and  1810,  already 
referred  to,  that  that  body  did  not  so  understand  the 
"Adopting  Act,"  as  to  allow  this  mode  of  receiving  the 
Confession  of  Faith,  nor  interpret  it  in  such  a  manner  as 
to  permit  the  new  theology  to  exist  in  the  church  without 
censure.  They  arraigned  and  condemned  some  of  those 
very  errors  which  have  been  enumerated  in  the  preceding 
chapters — and  in  doing  this  they  did  not  depart  in  the 
least  from  the  provisions  of  the  "Adopting  Act,"  nor 
from  the  views  expressed  concerning  it  by  successive 
Synods,  up  to  the  time  of  the  formation  of  the  General 
Assembly — but  were  carrying  out  those  views  in  the  way 
which  had  been  definitely  stipulated  and  agreed  to,  by 
the  articles  of  union  between  the  Synods  of  New  York 
and  Philadelphia,  in  1758,  viz. :  "  strictly  enjoining  it  on 
all  their  ministers  and  probationers  for  the  ministry,  that 
they  preach  and  teach  according  to  the  form  of  sound 


204  OLD    AND    NEW    THEOLOGY. 

words  in  the  said  Confession  and  Catechisms,  and  avoid 
and  oppose  all  errors  contrary  thereto." 

PREVALENCE    OF   ERRORS. 

The  question  now  arises,  did  those  errors  prevail  in  the 
"bounds  of  the  Presbyterian  Church  for  some  years  prior 
to  1837  ?  and  if  so,  to  what  extent  ?  The  answer  is 
found  partly  in  the  statements  contained  in  the  preced- 
ing chapters.  But  as  the  action  of  the  Assembly,  at 
that  time,  was  directed  chiefly  towards  the  three  Synods 
of  Western  New  York,  and  the  Synod  of  the  Western 
Reserve,  it  will  be  proper  to  state  some  facts  with  special 
reference  to  them. 

At  the  Auburn  Convention,*  in  1837,  (composed  of 
ministers  and  elders  called  together  to  consider  the  As- 
sembly's acts),  a  distinguished  member  observed,  that  "  he 
must  say  there  had  been  hitherto  a  disposition  to  conceal ; 
that  errors  and  irregularities  in  this  section  of  the  church 
have  been  greater  than  we  have  been  willing  to  acknow- 
ledge." At  the  same  meeting  the  committee  on  doctrines 
reported  a  paper  similar  in  its  statements  to  one  agreed 
upon  in  1797,  by  a  committee  of  the  Presbyterian,  Re- 
formed Dutch,  and  Associate  Reformed  Churches,  as  the 
basis  of  an  agreement  for  uniting  in  sending  missionaries 
to  the  new  settlements ;  accompanied  by  a  list  of  errors, 
the  same  as  those  specified  by  the  preceding  General  As- 
sembly.    One  member  proposed,  as  a  substitute  for  the 

*  We  were  present  at  that  Convention  and  published  soon  after- 
wards, in  the  Presbyterian,  what  we  now  state  concerning  its  de- 
bates, &c. 


OLD    AND    NEW    THEOLOGT.  205 

paper,  the  protest  of  the  minority  of  the  preceding  As- 
sembly. A  second  did  nol  think  that  some  of  the  errors 
there  specified  were  fundamental,  and  he  could  not,  there- 
fore, solemnly  pledge  himself  (as  the  report  recommended) 
to  discipline  those  whom  he  might  know  to  hold  them. 
A  third  said,  he  was  persuaded  that  the  Convention  could 
not  agree,  either  in  the  statement  of  doctrine  in  detail 
made  in  the  report  of  the  committee,  or  in  that  of  the 
protestants  in  the  last  Assembly.  A  fourth  expressed 
his  concurrence  with  the  one  last  referred  to,  and  pro- 
posed that  they  should  adopt  the  first  part  of  the  report 
of  the  committee  without  going  into  detail ;  which  was 
accordingly  done. 

During  the  discussion  of  the  above  report,  a  prominent 
elder  objected  to  the  report,  ^'  because  some  of  the  errors 
there  specified  he  did  not  consider  to  be  errors — for  ex- 
ample, he  did  not  believe  that  Adam's  sin  was  imputed 
to  his  posterity.  He  was  satisfied  they  never  could  agree 
on  any  creed  as  extensive  as  this ;  while  we  agree  in  sub- 
stantial, we  cannot  agree  in  minor  points;  here  every 
man  must  be  allowed  to  have  his  own  creed.  This  is  the 
fault  of  our  Confession  of  Faith — it  is  too  extensive  for 
agreement.  State  a  few  general  points  involving  that  we 
are  sinners  and  are  saved  by  the  grace  of  God,  through 
Jesus  Christ  and  the  agency  of  the  Holy  Ghost,  and  we 
can  agree ;  but  when  you  come  to  speak  of  the  quo  modo 
we  cannot  be  expected  to  agree.  We  have  a  right  to  dif- 
fer ;  if  we  agree  on  these  points,  woe  to  him  who  pro- 
nounces such  men  heretics — we  must  have  the  riMit  of 
private  judgment.  There  are  two  opposite  doctrines  in 
the  church ;  I  can  agree  to  receive  as  Christians  those 
who  hold  to  either,  and  sit  under  their  ministry,  though  I 
18 


206  OLD    AND    NEW    THEOLOGY. 

differ  from  some  of  them.     There  are  some  who  hold  that 

• 

"we  are  born  sinners  before  we  arrive  at  moral  agency ; 
and  they  carry  out  the  system  to  Antinomianism.  Others 
hold  Grod  to  be  a  moral  governor,  who  governs  man  in  a 
manner  analogous  to  what  is  done  in  other  governments. 
They  are  both  substantially  true — both  contain  the  gos- 
pel, yet  they  are  opposite." 

Another  member  of  the  Convention  (a  minister)  ob- 
served to  us,  in  private  conversation,  "  We  are  so  tram- 
melled and  shackled,  and  under  tyranny  by  Confessions 
of  Faith,  that  if  we  advance  anything  new,  we  are  sus- 
pected of  heresy.  We  ought  to  be  making  improvements 
in  theology  as  much  as  in  other  matters."  While,  there- 
fore, he  would  have  a  Confession  of  Faith,  it  should  not 
be  a  permanent  and  fixed  one,  but  subject  to  be  modified 
with  every  additional  light  that  should  be  thrown  on  the 
subject.  Every  minister,  every  church,  and  every  Pres- 
bytery, should  write  a  new  confession  of  faith  as  often  as 
once  a  year,  and  then,  by  comparing  it  with  the  old,  see 
what  changes  (if  any)  were  necessary  to  be  made.  We 
asked  him  whether  he  would  not  recommend  the  same 
course  to  the  General  Assembly,  and  have  our  Confession 
of  Faith  undergo  a  revision.  He  said  he  thought  it  ought 
to  be  altered  in  a  number  of  particulars.  We  asked  him 
how  he  could  adopt  it  while  entertaining  such  views.  He 
replied,  "  I  adopt  it  only  as  a  system,  without  intending 
to  subscribe  to  the  whole  of  it.  As  a  system  I  believe 
it ;  and  provided  I  hold  doctrines  belonging  peculiarly  to 
another  system — such  as  Arminian  or  Pelagian — I  could 
not  consistently,  I  confess,  adopt  the  Confession,  unless  I 
stated  my  exceptions  at  the  time  of  adopting  it.  When 
I  first  adopted  it,  I  entertained  different  views  on  several 


OLD'AND    NEW    THEOLOGY.  207 

points  from  what  I  do  now,  viz. :  atonement,  the  moral 
government  of  God,  imputation,  and  original  sin — but  I 
believe  I  am  as  near  the  Confession  now  as  I  was  then. 
I  believe  substantially  as  I  did  then,  and  I  suppose  that 
all  the  changes  which  might  be  required  from  time  to  time, 
with  the  addition  of  new  light,  would  not  alter  it  so  as  to 
make  it  another  system.  When  it  was  written,  a  different 
philosophy  prevailed  from  what  does  now — a  false  philo- 
sophy— through  which  some  expressions  were  introduced 
into  the  Confession  which  are  not  true — e.  g.  '  sinned  in 
him  and  fell  with  him  in  his  first  transgression' — which 
conveys  a  false  idea."  "  Do  you  mean,"  we  asked,  "  that 
it  contains  a  false  idea,  as  the  framers  of  the  Confession 
understood  it?"  "Yes,  he  said,  as  they  understood  it. 
Their  philosophy  was  false — they  held  that  we  were  really 
there  in  the  garden,  and  partook  of  the  forbidden  fruit ; 
he  would,  therefore,  have  this  clause  altered  so  as  to  make 
it  accord  with  modern  philosophy.*  On  the  subject  of 
God's  moral  government,  he  thought  the  Confession  de- 
fective— he  would  have  a  whole  chapter  added  on  this 

*  A  similar  caricature  of  Old-school  views  has  been  recently  put 
forth,  in  a  volume  published  by  a  committee  of  the  Synod  of  New 
York  and  New  Jersey.  "  Some  of  them  believe  in  the  identity  of 
the  posterity  of  Adam  with  him  in  his  first  transgression  ;  others, 
that  there  was  a  literal  transfer  of  his  sin  to  them,  as  also  of  the 
righteousness  of  Christ  to  his  people."  "We  presume  it  will  not  be 
pretended  that  any  portion  of  the  church  since  the  beginning  of 
the  present  century,  have  gone  further  in  maintaining  these  phases 
of  doctrine  than  was  done  previous  to  that  time.  In  the  case 
adjudicated  by  the  General  Assembly  in  1798,  already  noticed  in 
this  chapter,  the  Assembly  say,  "  that  the  transferring  of  personal 
sin  or  righteousness  has  never  been  held  by  Calvinistic  divines,  nor 
by  any  person  in  our  church,  as  far  as  is  known  to  us." 


208  OLD    AND    NEW    THEOLOGY. 

subject."     This  is  a  specimen  of  a  conversation  which 
was  continued  in  a  similar  strain  for  half  an  hour. 

After  these  statements  the  reader  will  not  be  surprised 
that  the  report  of  the  committee  on  doctrine  was  amended, 
by  expunging  from  it  "all  the  details"  both  of  what  the 
Convention  believed,  and  what  they  regarded  as  errors. 
The  paper  as  adopted  was  good  as  far  as  it  went,  but  it 
was  brief,  and  expressed  in  general  terms.  Some  of  the 
members  would  have  been  glad  to  adopt  the  report  with- 
out alteration  or  abridgment,  but  they  were  overruled  by 
others  who  thought  differently.  How  many  of  them 
actually  entertained  the  views  narrated  above,  we  cannot 
say ;  but  w^e  have  reason  for  believing  that  these  two  were 
not  the  only  ones — and  also  that  there  were  ministers 
and  laymen  in  considerable  numbers,  belonging  to  those 
Synods,  but  not  present  at  the  Convention,  whose  the- 
ology was  of  the  same  stamp.  In  a  letter,  understood  to 
have  been  written  by  a  member  of  the  Synod  of  Geneva, 
and  published  in  the  Hartford  Ohristian  Watchman,  soon 
after  the  meeting  of  the  General  Assembly  in  1837,  the 
writer  states :  "  I  declared  more  than  once  before  the 
Assembly,  that  the  errors  against  which  the  Convention 
testified,  do  exist" — meaning  the  Convention  which  had 
been  sitting  for  several  days  previous  in  Philadelphia. 
Another  minister  belonging  to  that  Synod,  wrote  the 
same  year  to  the  author  of  this  volume  :  "A  considerable 
number  of  members,  and  two  ministers  (alluding  to  his 
own  Presbytery),  incline  strongly  to  Taylorism — I  should 
say  are  Taylorites — more  are  not  sound  Calvinists  of  the 
Edwards  stamp.  Our  theology  has  many  shades."  From 
personal  intercourse  with  different  ministers  in  the  Synod 
of  Utica,  and  from  other  reliable  testimony,  we  are  war- 


OLD    AND    NEW    THEOLOGY.  209 

ranted  in  saying  that  some  of  the  ministers  in  each  of  the 
Presbyteries  connected  with  that  Synod,  from  1830  to 
1837,  embraced  the  New  Haven  Theology ;  and  that  it 
prevailed  to  a  considerable  extent  in  their  churches.  A 
letter  now  in  our  possession,  written  by  one  of  their  min- 
isters in  1833,  to  a  clerical  friend,  contains  the  following : 
"  0  my  dear  brother,  beware  of  that  doctrine  of  a  limited 
atonement.  I  hope  I  do  not  go  too  far,  when  I  say  it 
had  its  rise  from  the  devil."  .  .  .  "  It  is  astonishing,  that 
at  the  present  day  of  light  and  knowledge,  men's  under- 
standings should  be  so  blinded.  For  my  part,  I  am 
awfully  prejudiced  against  the  Old-school  divinity."  .  .  . 
"  I  want  you  candidly  to  answer  the  following  questions. 
Do  you  believe  infants  have  a  moral  character  ?  Are  we 
to  be  accountable  for  the  moral  act  of  our  first  parents  ? 
What  do  you  think  of  the  New  Haven  Theology  ?  Do 
you  acquiesce  in  Dr.  Taylor's  notions  ?  Do  you  consider 
them   agreeable  with  the   Scriptures?      His  divinity  is 

spreading  very  widely."  .  .  .  ''  I  am  really  glad  that 

has  commenced  his  studies,"  ....  "I  hope  he  will  not 
imbibe  the  principles  of  the  Princeton  Divinity."  * 

A  minister  in  the  Synod  of  Genessee,  in  a  letter  penned 
in  1837,  wrote  thus :  "  Ministers  and  churches  in  this 
section  have  become  so  much  disposed  to  favour  Armlnlan 
doctrines,  and  are  so  fond  of  new  things,  that  it  is  diffi- 
cult to  preach  the  doctrine  of  our  Confession,  or  even  to 
use  our  endeavours  to  correct  abuses  and  extravagances 
in  measures,  without  hearing  the  cry  of  Old-school,  op- 

*  The  above  and  most  of  the  statements  which  follovr,  in  relation 
to  those  Synods,  were  published  in  1837,  in  a  pamphlet  entitled 
"  Facts  and  Observations,"  &c. 
18* 


210  OLD    AND    NEW    THEOLOGY. 

posed  to  revivals,"  &c.  Another  minister  wrote  as  fol- 
lows :  "  New  Theology  and  new  measures  have  received 
a  number  of  checks  in  our  Presbytery,  and,  indeed,  in 
this  region  generally — especially  since  the  Old-school  in 
the  Assembly  began  to  be  so  earnest  for  reform.  Though 
I  do  not  by  any  means  suppose  but  what  the  roots  of  the 
evil  remain  among  us  yet,  ready  to  spring  up  when  per- 
mitted. Indeed,  in  one  sense,  almost  the  entire  theology 
of  this  whole  region  is  *New,'  if  strictly  compared  with 
our  standards."  At  a  protracted  meeting  in  one  of  their 
churches  in  May,  1837,  the  officiating  minister,  after 
preaching  a  sermon  on  the  ability  of  Christians  to  keep 
the  law  of  God,  called  upon  them  to  confess  their  sins, 
and  promise  to  keep  the  law.  Most  of  them  were  willing 
to  confess,  but  when  they  came  to  make  promises,  there 
was  a  reluctance ;  as  but  few  were  prepared  to  fall  in 
practically  with  the  doctrine  of  the  sermon.  Some  said, 
We  will  try — others,  We  will  endeavour  by  God's  assist- 
ance, &c. ;  but  this  did  not  satisfy  him — he  called  it  An- 
tinomianism — and  told  them  he  wished  them  to  promise, 
not  that  they  would  try  to  keep  the  law,  but  that  they 
would  keep  it.  Perfectionism  existed  to  some  extent  in 
several  of  their  churches,  and  also  in  some  churches  be- 
longing to  the  Synods  before  named — but  it  was  discoun- 
tenanced, and  made  a  ground  of  discipline  by  some  of 
the  Presbyteries,  perhaps  by  all  where  it  was  known  to 
exist.  The  same  cannot  be  stated  concerning  the  Synod 
of  the  Western  Reserve,  a  majority  of  whose  ministers 
and  cluirches,  we  have  reason  to  believe,  accorded  in  doc- 
trine with  Mr.  Finney.  This  is  inferred  concerning  the 
ministers,  from  the  fact,  that  in  1834  or  1835,  a  paper 
was  signed  by  fifty  ministers  or  more,  inviting  Mr.  Fin- 


OLD    AND    NEW    THEOLOGY.  211 

ney  to  become  Professor  of  Theology  in  the  Western  Re- 
serve College  ;  and  concerning  ministers  and  people  both, 
it  may  be  inferred  from  the  fact  that  the  labours  of  Mr. 
Foote,  as  an  evangelist,  (who  preached  extensively  among 
them)  were  generally  approved.  Mr.  Foote,  it  was  un- 
derstood, agreed  substantially  with  Mr.  Finney,  but  went 
further  than  the  latter  in  some  points,  from  what  is  called 
Old-school  theology. 

ATTEMPTS   TO    CHECK   THESE   ERRORS. 

Attempts  were  made  to  check  these  errors  as  early  as 
1829  or  1830,  and  were  continued  every  year  till  the 
occurrence  of  those  decisive  measures  adopted  by  the 
Assembly  in  1837.  Individual  efforts  were  made  through 
the  press,  by  the  publication  of  books,  pamphlets,  and 
periodicals.  Besides  the  able  Quarterly  at  Princeton, 
which  had  been  commenced  a  little  previous,  and  a  monthly 
Magazine  at  Philadelphia,  both  of  which  did  good  service 
in  defence  of  the  truth,  four  weekly  newspapers  were 
either  established  or  resuscitated  for  the  special  purpose 
of  counteracting  these  errors,  and  those  "new  measures" 
which  were  generally  associated  with  them — one  in  Utica, 
a  second  in  Albany,  a  third  in  Philadelphia,  and  a  fourth 
in  Pittsburgh.  The  last  two  have  been  continued  to  this 
day.  Prosecutions  for  heresy  were  instituted  in  two  in- 
stances, against  distinguished  individuals  before  their 
Presbyteries,  on  the  charge  of  holding  and  teaching  some 
of  those  errors.  The  Board  of  Missions  refused  to  com- 
mission men  as  missionaries,  who  were  suspected  of  enter- 
taining those  views.  The  gratuitous  distribution  of  the 
Confession  of  Faith  "  among  the  more  remote  and  des- 


212  OLD    AND    NEW    THEOLOGY. 

titute  churches,"  was  provided  for  by  vote  of  the  As- 
sembly. That  body  enjoined  on  Presbyteries  to  take 
special  care  to  require  of  candidates  for  licensure  and 
ordination,  and  of  ministers  entering  our  Church  from 
other  ecclesiastical  connections,  to  give  their  assent  to 
the  "  Constitution  of  the  Presbyterian  Church;"  and  a 
paper  was  adopted  by  the  Assembly  to  the  effect,  that  an 
assent  to  this  constitution  had  always  been  considered  as 
a  reception  and  adoption  of  the  Westminster  Confession 
of  Faith,  and  Larger  and  Shorter  Catechisms  as  the  con- 
fession of  our  faith.  Particular  attention  was  directed  to 
the  operation  of  the  Plan  of  Union  of  1801,* between 
Presbyterians  and  Congregationalists  ;  and  the  Synod  of' 
the  Western  Reserve  was  especially  directed  to  examine 
the  state  of  the  churches  under  its  care,  with  reference  to 
alleged  departures  from  the  Constitution  of  the  Church, 
in  ordaining  ministers  and  receiving  them  from  other 
churches  "  without  being  required  by  the  Presbyteries  to 
receive  and  adopt  the  Confession  of  Faith  of  the  Pres- 
byterian Church."  (See  3fmutes  of  Assembly  for  18S2 
and  1833).  Appeals  from  lower  judicatories  were  also 
brought  before  the  Assembly,  containing  charges  of  doc- 
trinal error,  and  efforts  were  made  (though  unsuccessful) 
to  secure  the  suspension  of  the  persons  on  trial,  from  the 
office  of  the  ministry.  —  Minutes  of  Assembly  1886. 

The  inefficiency  of  these  measures  was  owing  to  seve- 
ral causes.  One  was,  the  earnest  desire  for  peace,  which 
induced  many  sound  men  to  favour  a  conciliatory  and 
compromising  policy,  so  long  as  there  was  in  their  judg- 
ment any  reasonable  hope  that  the  evils  complained  of 
would  gradually  cure  themselves,  without  a  resort  to  ex- 

*  See  Appendix  for  this  plan. 


OLD    AND    NEW    THEOLOGY.  213 

treme  measures.  A  second  was  the  effect  of  the  Plan  of 
Union  to  introduce  into  our  body  many  ministers  who 
regarded  themselves  as  having  a  right  under  the  pro- 
visions of  that  Plan,  to  receive  our  Confession  of  Faith 
only  for  substance  of  doctrine ;  and  being  men  of  loose 
doctrinal  views  (in  the  strict  Presbyterian  sense  of  this 
term)  they  were  opposed  to  the  exercise  of  discipline  for 
doctrinal  errors.  By  the  operation  of  the  same  Plan 
(though  by  its  perversion)  hundreds  of  Congregational 
and  mixed  churches,  claimed  the  right  of  being  repre- 
sented in  our  Presbyteries,  Synods,  and  General  Assem- 
bly, by  men  who  were  not  ruling  elders,  and  had  never 
assented  to,  and  did  not  profess  to  receive  (except  in  the 
largest  sense)  the  Presbyterian  Confession  of  Faith.  A 
third  was  the  influence  of  the  Home  Missionary  and 
American  Education  Societies,  particularly  the  former, 
in  introducing  into  our  pulpits  unsound  men,  who  in  some 
localities  became  so  numerous  as  to  form  majorities  in  our 
church  courts.  These  last  two  points  may  require  some 
illustration. 

OPERATION   or   THE   PLAN   OF   UNION. 

As  the  Plan  of  Union  permitted  churches  formed  under 
it  to  enjoy  their  preferences  either  to  be  organized  as 
Presbyterian  or  Congregational  churches,  or  to  be  a  mix- 
ture of  the  two,  as  circumstances  might  seem  to  render 
expedient ;  and  as  a  large  portion  of  the  material  for  the 
churches  in  Western  New  York  and  Northern  Ohio, 
called  the  Western  Reserve,  was  composed  of  immigrants 
from  New  England,  where  most  of  the  churches  were 
Congregational,  it  was  to  be  expected  that  there  would 


214  OLD    AND    NEW    THEOLOGY. 

exist  very  extensively  a  partiality  for  the  Congregational 
form  of  government.  Hence  it  is  not  surprising  that  in 
1837  about  one  half  of  the  churches  in  those  Synods, 
taken  as  a  whole,  were  Congregational,  and  that  portions 
of  many  others  preferred  that  kind  of  organization — some 
of  them  to  such  a  degree  as  to  be  quite  restive  under  the 
government  of  a  church  session.  In  the  Synod  of  Utica 
the  churches  were  about  equally  divided  with  respect  to 
organization ;  in  the  Synods  of  Geneva  and  Genessee, 
about  two-thirds  were  nominally  Presbyterian,  and  in  the 
Synod  of  the  Western  Reserve  about  three-fourths  were 
Congregational.  In  all  of  them,  though  there  was  an 
understanding  that  as  churches  they  received  in  a  very 
general  manner  the  Confession  of  Faith  of  the  Presbyte- 
rian Church,  there  was  no  formal  adoption  of  it  by  the 
churches  even  as  a  "system,"  or  for  ''substance  of  doc- 
trine." The  Assembly's  Shorter  Catechism  was  under- 
stood to  be  an  epitome  of  the  Presbyterian  Confession  of 
Faith,  and  that  Catechism  was  held  in  high  estimation  in 
the  New  England  churches,  and  hence  those  who  left 
them  and  settled  in  Western  New  York  and  the  Western 
Reserve,  felt  no  objection  on  doctrinal  grounds  to  be  con- 
nected with  the  Presbyterian  body.  Yet  they  did  not 
feel  themselves  committed  even  to  the  Catechism,  as 
their  confession  of  faith.  Each  church  had  its  own  con- 
fession, and  this  might  be  enlarged  or  abbreviated, 
changed  or  modified,  at  the  pleasure  of  the  communicants. 
Through  the  influence  of  those  evangelists  called  "  revival 
men,"  who  laboured  extensively  among  them  for  eight  or 
ten  years,  commencing  in  1826,  many  of  these  confes- 
sions were  altered,  some  in  one  way  and  some  in  another, 
so  as  to  meet  (in  the  judgment  of  their  advisers)  the  de- 


OLD    AND    NEW    THEOLOGY.  215 

mands  of  Christian  charity,  or  to  keep  pace  with  the  In- 
creasing light  of  the  age.  We  state  these  facts,  not  con- 
jecturally,  but  from  the  most  reliable  testimony.  Many 
of  their  ministers  were  also  from  New  England,  and  pro- 
fessed to  receive  the  Confession  of  Faith  only  as  a  "  sys- 
tem;" while  some  of  them  entered  the  Presbyterian 
Church  without  any  formal  adoption  of  our  Standards. 
This  is  admitted  by  the  Synod  of  the  Western  Reserve 
in  its  communication  to  the  General  Assembly  in  1833. 
(See  Assembly's  Minutes  for  that  year.)  From  these 
facts  it  is  manifest,  that  in  a  Presbytery  or  Synod  com- 
posed largely  of  such  men,  there  would  exist  but  little 
disposition  to  call  any  of  its  members  to  account  for  a 
departure  from  our  Confession  of  Faith  ; — and  that  should 
they  be  admitted  to  seats  In  the  General  Assembly,  they 
might  be  expected  to  oppose  any  measure  brought  for- 
ward in  that  body,  having  in  view  the  prosecution  either 
of  ministers  or  churches  for  doctrinal  error. 

THE   AMERICAN   EDUCATION   AND    HOME   MISSIONARY 

SOCIETIES. 

The  injurious  influence  of  the  American  Education 
Society  in  our  Church,  arose  chiefly  from  the  nature  of 
its  organization.  It  aided  Congregationalists,  Presbyte- 
rians, Lutherans,  &c.,  but  exercised  no  ecclesiastical  con- 
trol over  its  candidates.  This  enlarged  and  liberal  policy 
was  often  held  up  in  certain  quarters,  by  way  of  contrast 
with  the  rigid  and  sectarian  course  pursued  by  the  Board 
of  Education,  which  required  Its  beneficiaries  to  subscribe 
a  pledge  containing  their  assent  to  the  Confession  of 
Faith,  and  their  purpose  to  become  preachers  of  the  gos- 


216  '.OLD    AND    NEW    THEOLOGY. 

pel  in  the  Presbyterian  Church.  The  tendency  of  this 
comparison,  in  its  influence  upon  the  Presbyterian  bene- 
ficiaries of  the  American  Education  Society,  was  to  di- 
minish their  attachment  to  their  own  church ;  to  make 
them  feel  that  its  doctrinal  standards,  according  to  their 
obvious  and  commonly  received  sense,  were  too  rigid, 
unfriendly  to  revivals,  and  to  the  spirit  of  the  age ;  and 
that  these  formularies  must  be  understood  in  a  lax  sense, 
in  order  to  enable  those  who  adopt  them  to  preach  the 
gospel  with  sincerity,  earnestness,  and  success. 

The  Home  Missionary  Society  exerted  an  unfriendly 
influence  among  us  in  several  ways.  The  policy  of  that 
Society,  and  perhaps  its  Constitution  also,  were  antago- 
nistic to  strict  Presbyterianism.  It  was  at  first  the  rival, 
and  then  the  opponent  of  our  own  Board  of  Missions. 
What  the  latter  was  authorized  and  required  to  do,  in 
order  to  check  the  progress  of  error,  by  refusing  to  com- 
mission unsound  men,  the  former  either  could  not  consti- 
tutionally do,  or  did  not  attempt.  Many  of  those  sent 
out  by  this  Society  to  labour  in  our  churches,  were  more 
or  less  favourable  to  the  "  New  Theology."  Circum- 
stances appeared  also  to  indicate  that  in  some  instances 
their  location  was  selected  for  them  with  reference  to  their 
"liberal"  views  concerning  doctrine  and  polity.  It  was 
spoken  of  at  the  time,  as  being  no  uncommon  event,  for 
the  majority  in  small  Presbyteries  to  become,  in  a  few 
months,  the  minority,  by  the  accession  of  three  or  four 
missionaries  of  that  Society.  And  in  most  cases,  as 
members  of  our  judicatories,  whether  in  the  majority  or 
minority,  they  were  found,  on  questions  of  doctrinal  con- 
troversy, to  argue  and  vote  against  the  Old-school,  and 
in  favour  of  the  New.     From  these  particulars,  it  is  easy 


OLD    AND    NEW    THEOLOGY.  217 

to  see  what  a  powerful  influence  that  Society  was  exert- 
ing over  the  several  judicatories  of  the  Presbyterian 
Church ;  and  how  difficult  it  was,  under  these  circum- 
stances, to  obtain  a  verdict  against  the  errors  and  irregu- 
larities which  existed  within  our  bounds.  After  a  struggle 
of  several  years,  the  crisis  at  length  arrived,  and  the 
General  Assembly  of  1837  adopted  those  decisive  meas- 
ures, which  were  condemned  by  one  party  as  unconstitu- 
tional and  oppressive,  but  regarded  by  the  other  as  being 
authorized  by  the  Constitution  of  the  Church,  and  de- 
manded by  the  necessity  of  the  case.  To  those  acts  we 
will  now  direct  our  attention. 


CHAPTER  XL 

THE    ACTS   OF    THE    GENERAL    ASSEMBLY    IN    1837    AND    1838. 

As  the  Plan  of  Union  agreed  to  in  1801  by  the  Gen- 
eral Assembly  and  the  General  Association  of  Connecti- 
cut, was  believed  to  be  a  prolific  source  of  the  errors 
which  had  for  some  years  disturbed  the  peace  of  our 
Church,  the  first  act  of  the  Assembly,  touching  the  sub- 
ject of  reform,  was  the  abrogation  of  that  Plan.  This 
was  done  in  the  following  terms  :  "But  as  the  'Plan  of 
Union'  adopted  for  the  new  settlements,  in  1801,  was  orig- 
inally an  unconstitutional  act  on  the  part  of  that  Assem- 
bly— these  important  standing  rules  having  never  been 
submitted  to  the  Presbyteries — and  as  they  were  totally 
destitute  of  authority  as  proceeding  from  the  General 
Association  of  Connecticut,  which  is  invested  with  no 
19 


218  OLD    AND    NEW    THEOLOGY. 

power  to  legislate  in  such  cases,  and  especially  to  enact 
laws  to  regulate  churches  not  within  her  limits ;  and  as 
much  confusion  and  irregularity  have  arisen  from  this 
unnatural  and  unconstitutional  system  of  union ;  there- 
fore, it  is  resolved,  that  the  Act  of  the  Assembly  of  1801, 
entitled  a  'Plan  of  Union,'  be,  and  the  same  is  hereby 
abrogated." 

As  this  resolution  was  the  basis  of  others  which  suc- 
ceeded, it  is  important  to  correct  two  or  three  mistakes 
which  appear  to  be  current  in  certain  quarters  with  re- 
gard to  the  Plan  of  Union.  One  of  these  relates  to  its 
origin.  It  has  been  often  asserted  that  the  General  As- 
sembly proposed  the  plan.  This  is  a  mistake.  It  has 
probably  arisen  from  the  fact,  that  the  only  authority 
which  has  been  relied  upon  for  the  history  of  the  affair, 
is  the  Assembly's  Digest,  which  unfortunately  contains 
only  a  part  of  the  record.  The  minutes  of  the  Assembly 
for  1800  and  1801,  show  that  the  plan  was  proposed  by 
the  General  Association  of  Connecticut,  and  not  by  the 
General  Assembly. 

In  the  minutes  for  1800,  is  the  following :  "  The  Rev. 
Dr.  Jonathan  Edwards,  the  Rev.  Asa  Hillyer  and  Jona- 
than Freeman  were  appointed  delegates  from  this  Assem- 
bly to  the  General  Association  of  Connecticut,"  kc.  Not 
a  word  is  said  about  instructing  them  to  negotiate  a  plan 
of  union.  In  the  minutes  of  1801  we  find  their  report 
as  follows :  "  The  delegates  from  the  General  Assembly 
to  the  General  Association  of  Connecticut  report,  that 
they  all  attended  according  to  appointment  through  the 
whole  course  of  the  session  of  the  General  Association. 
That  besides  the  business  peculiar  to  the  churches  of 
Connecticut,  the  General  Association  appointed  a  com- 


OLD    AND    NEW    THEOLOGY.  219 

mittee  to  confer  with  a  committee  that  may  be  appointed 
by  the  General  Assembly,  on  measures  which  may  pro- 
mote union  among  the  inhabitants  of  the  new  settlements 
and  the  missionaries  to  those  settlements,  as  appears  by 
the  enclosed  paper."  Immediately  after  the  committee 
had  reported,  the  paper  referred  to  above  was  read,  the 
minute  concerning  which  is  as  follows :  "A  communica- 
tion was  read  from  the  General  Association  of  the  State 
of  Connecticut,  appointing  a  committee  to  confer  with  a 
committee  of  the  Presbyterian  Church,  to  consider  the 
measures  proper  to  be  adopted  by  the  General  Associa- 
tion and  the  General  Assembly,  for  establishing  a  uni- 
form system  of  church  government  between  the  inhabi- 
tants of  the  new  settlements  who  are  attached  to  the 
Presbyterian  form  of  government,  and  those  who  prefer 
the  Congregational  form.  Ordered  that  the  said  commu- 
nication lie  on  the  table.  Succeeding  this,  on  the  same 
page,  is  the  following :  "  The  Rev.  Drs.  Edwards,  Mc- 
Knight  and  Woodhull,  the  Rev.  Mr.  Blatchford  and 
Hutton,  were  appointed  a  committee  to  consider  and  digest 
a  plan  of  government  for  the  churches  in  the  new  settle- 
ments, agreeably  to  the  proposal  of  the  General  Asso- 
ciation of  Connecticut,  and  report  the  same  as  soon  as 
convenient." 

Again — it  has  been  often  affirmed,  that  during  the 
whole  period  of  thirty-six  years,  in  which  this  plan  was 
in  operation  [prior  to  1837,]  no  objection  was  made  to  it ; 
and  consequently  it  is  to  be  considered  as  having  received 
during  this  long  period  the  silent  approbation  of  the 
whole  church.  But  this  is  a  mistake.  First,  it  is  not 
true,  in  the  sense  intended  by  those  who  revert  to  it,  that 
the  Plan  had  been  in  operation  for  so  long  a  time — we 


220'  OLD    AND    NEW    THEOLOGY. 

mean  in  such  a  sense  as  to  give  to  the  fact  that  force 
■which  it  is  supposed  to  have  in  determining  its  validity. 
For  ten  or  twelve  years  after  it  was  formed,  its  influence 
upon  the  church  was  scarcely  felt ;  and  for  as  many  more, 
the  evils  growing  out  of  it  had  not  developed  themselves 
as  they  did  after  that  time.  The  Plan  was  originally 
intended  not  as  a  medium  through  which  Congregation- 
alism would  be  perpetuated  in  the  Presbyterian  Church, 
but  to  afford  opportunity  for  Congregationalists,  (if  after 
learning  the  character  of  our  system  they  approved  of  it) 
to  becoqjje  Presbyterians.  This  remark  applies  to  both 
parties  in  the  arrangement.  The  ministers  of  Connecti- 
cut were  favourable  to  the  Presbyterian  form  of  govern- 
ment ;  one  feature  of  it  was  already  in  existence  in  their 
churches,  and  they  were  willing  (not  to  say  desirous)  to 
have  their  people,  who  should  emigrate  to  other  States, 
become  Presbyterians.  This  idea,  we  think,  is  clearly 
implied  in  the  account  which  has  been  published  of  the 
interview  of  the  committee  of  the  Assembly  with  a  com- 
mittee of  the  Association  in  1826.  "As  to  the  union, 
they  said,  (the  Connecticut  committee)  that  it  had  not 
been  gone  into  for  their  accommodation,  but  for  ours ; 
that  they  had  agreed  to  it  for  two  reasons  :  first,  because 
it  was  a  help  to  many  New  England  people  in  the  infant 
settlements  towards  obtaining  gospel  ordinances:  and 
secondly,  because  it  assisted  the  Assembly  in  spreading 
Presbyterianism  through  that  region."  But  instead  of 
spreading  Presbyterianism,  it  spread,  in  a  large  number 
of  cases  Congregationalism  under  the  Presbyterian  name. 
Presbyteries  were  not  only  formed  of  Congregational 
materials,  but  with  an  express  stipulation  placed  at  the 
beginning  of  their  Records,  that  they  might  always  re- 


OLD    AND    NEW    THEOLOGY.  221 

main  so,  and  yet  continue  in  the  Presbyterian  Church. 
And  then,  by  such  a  construction  of  the  Plan  of  Union 
as  was  never  intended  by  the  original  framers,  they 
claimed  the  right  of  sending  commissioners,  who  were 
not  ruling  elders,  to  the  General  Assembly.  This  is  the 
point  of  time  at  which  the  Plan  ought  to  be  dated,  if  it  is 
designed  to  have  any  bearing  on  the  constitutional  ques- 
tion ;  because  at  this  time,  and  not  before,  were  its  effects 
upon  our  church  order  fully  manifest ;  and  this  would  be 
not  thirty-six  years,  but  less  than  twenty. 

We  are  now  prepared  to  observe,  secondly,  that  as  soon 
as  these  effects  of  the  Plan  of  Union  were  perceived,  ob- 
jections began  to  be  made  to  it,  and  they  were  repeated 
at  different  times,  and  in  one  form  or  another,  until  its 
abrogation.  In  1826,  a  commissioner  from  the  Rochester 
Presbytery  was  received  by  the  Assembly,  who  was  not  a 
ruling  elder ;  but  a  protest  was  immediately  entered 
against  it,  signed  by  forty-two  members.  In  1831,  a 
committee-man  was  received  by  the  Assembly  as  a  com- 
missioner from  the  Grand  River  Presbytery,  against 
which  sixty-seven  members  entered  their  protest.  A  part 
of  this  protest  is  as  follows  :  "  The  articles  of  agreement 
alluded  to  in  the  beginning  of  this  paper,  (referring  to 
the  Plan  of  Union  of  1801),  are  supposed  to  give  this 
individual,  and  all  others  similarly  situated,  a  seat  in  this 
Assembly.  That  agreement  is  altogether  anomalous  to 
our  form  of  government,  and,  so  far  as  it  does  extend,  is 
in  derogation  of  it."  .  .  .  "  Those  articles  can  never  cover 
this  case,  because  they  expressly  stipulate  the  church 
session  and  Presbytery,  as  the  church  courts  to  which 
these  '  committee-men'  may  have  access,  in  the  character 
of  ruling  elders,  and  mention  no  others."  .  .  .  "If,  how- 
19=^ 


222  OLD    AND    NEW    THEOLOGY. 

ever,  they  are  so  construed  as  to  place  members  here  who 
are,  by  our  constitution,  forbidden  to  be  here,  or  as  in 
any  degree  to  aifect  the  principles  of  the  organization  of 
this  house,  as  clearly  defined  in  our  books,  then  it  is 
manifest  that  the  articles  must  be  considered  utterly  null 
and  void.'' 

Though  the  Assembly  received  the  commissioner  above 
referred  to,  they  adopted  a  resolution  that  "  the  appoint- 
ment, by  some  Presbyteries,  as  has  occurred  in  a  few 
cases,  of  members  of  standing  committees  to  be  members 
of  the  General  Assembly,  is  inexpedient,  and  of  question- 
able constitutionality,  and  therefore  ought  not,  in  future, 
to  be  made."  The  next  year,  that  same  Presbytery  dele- 
gated two  committee-men  as  commissioners  to  the  As- 
sembly ;  but  their  commissions,  after  having  been  placed 
in  the  hands  of  a  committee,  were  withdrawn.  At  the 
same  meeting,  there  was  a  commissioner  from  a  Presby- 
tery in  Western  New  York,  who  was  neither  an  elder  nor 
a  committee-man ;  but  being  commissioned  as  an  elder, 
and  no  one  present  being  acquainted  with  the  circum- 
stance, or  disposed  to  make  it  known,  he  was  received  as 
a  member.  The  year  following  a  committee-man  appeared 
from  the  Presbytery  of  OsAvego,  and  would  have  been 
received,  (as  his  commission  did  not  specify  his  true  char- 
acter), had  not  a  member*  who  had  incidentally  become 
acquainted  with  the  fact,  made  it  knoAvn  to  the  house, 
when  leave  was  given  him  to  withdraw  his  commission. 
These  facts  show  with  what  tenacity  those  Presbyteries 
which  were  formed  in  pursuance  of  the  Plan  of  Union, 
persisted  in  the  practice  of  sending  up  commissioners, 
even  after  the  Assembly  had  adopted  a  resolution  against 

*  The  author  of  this  volume. 


OLD    AND    NEW    THEOLOGY.  223 

it ;  and  the  course  which  the  Assembly  pursued  in  regard 
to  them,  was  an  expression  of  disapprobation  against 
their  interpretation  of  the  Plan,  if  not  against  the  Plan 
itself.  In  1835,  the  Assembly  resolved  that  no  more 
churches  should  be  organized  on  the  Plan  of  Union,  and 
in  1837  the  Plan  was  abrogated.  Thus  for  eleven  years 
previous  to  this  last  act,  there  was  evidently  a  growing 
dissatisfaction  with  the  manner  in  which  the  Plan  of 
Union  was  found  to  operate ;  its  constitutionality  was 
more  than  once  called  in  question,  and  intimations  were 
given,  in  no  doubtful  language,  that  the  Assembly  ought 
either  to  "amend  or  annul"  it. 

With  regard  to  the  measure  itself — it  has  been  objected 
that  the  Assembly  were  bound,  before  passing  such  an 
act,  to  ask  the  consent  of  the  other  contracting  party — 
meaning  thereby  either  the  General  Association  of  Con- 
necticut, or  the  churches  formed  on  the  Plan  of  Union. 
Were  they  bound  to  ask  the  consent  of  the  Association  ? 
For  an  answer  to  this  question,  we  refer  the  reader  to 
the  opinion  of  George  Wood,  Esq.,  a  distinguished  lawyer 
of  New  York,  given  in  1837,  at  the  request  of  some  of 
our  New-school  brethren.  "  I  do  not  think  that  this  Plan 
of  Union  formed,  or  was  the  result  of,  a  compact  between 
the  General  Assembly  and  the  Association  of  Connecti- 
cut, so  as  to  render  it  obligatory  upon  the  General  As- 
sembly to  carry  into  effect  the  measure,  or  to  continue  its 
operation  any  longer  than  they  should  deem  proper."  .  . 
"  It  may  be  questioned  whether  the  assent  of  the  Asso- 
ciation to  the  adoption  by  the  Assembly  of  this  Plan  was 
necessary.  The  Congregationalists  to  be  affected  by  this 
Plan  were  out  of  the  jurisdiction  of  that  Association,  and 
beyond  their  control ;  but  they  no  doubt  felt  themselves 


224  OLD    AND    NEW    THEOLOGY. 

under  a  moral  influence,  which  rendered  it  a  matter  of 
delicacy  and  expediency  on  the  part  of  the  General  As- 
sembly to  obtain  the  assent  of  that  Association.  But 
supposing  the  assent  of  the  Association  to  have  been  in- 
dispensable when  it  was  given,  they  had  nothing  further 
to  do  with  the  Plan.  It  then  became  the  measure  of  the 
General  Assembly  alone,  to  be  dropped,  or  acted  upon, 
or  modified  as  they  should  deem  advisable."  If  this 
opinion  be  correct,  then  the  churches  alone,  if  any  body, 
were  the  party  to  be  consulted.  On  this  point  we  need 
only  observe,  that  if  there  is  obligation  on  either  side  to 
ask  the  consent  of  the  other  before  the  connection  might 
be  dissolved,  this  obligation  must  be  equally  binding  upon 
both.  But  did  the  churches  ever  feel  any  obligation  of 
this  kind  ?  Did  they  not  always  consider  it  as  optional 
with  them,  either  to  continue  their  connection  with  the 
Presbyterian  Church,  to  become  independent,  or  join  an 
Association,  without  asking  the  consent  of  the  General 
Assembly  ?  As  a  matter  of  courtesy,  they  usually  noti- 
fied the  Presbytery  to  which  they  belonged,  that  they 
were  about  to  change  their  ecclesiastical  connection ;  but 
not  from  a  belief  of  the  existence  of  any  contract  with 
the  Presbytery,  which  obliged  them  to  do  so ;  and  it  fre- 
quently happened  that  the  Presbyteries  had  no  knowledge 
of  their  intention,  until  after  the  formation  of  their  new 
alliances.  If,  therefore,  the  churches  formed  on  the  Plan 
of  Union  did  not  understand  the  Plan  as  involving  any 
obligation  upon  themselves  of  the  kind  supposed,  it  would 
be  unreasonable  in  them  to  maintain  that  any  such  obli- 
gation rested  on  the  Assembly,  or  to  expect  that  an  over- 
ture should  have  been  made  to  them  by  the  Assembly, 
askinsr  their  consent  for  a  dissolution  of  the  union. 


OLD    AND    NEW    THEOLOGY.  225 


FURTHER   PROCEEDINGS   OF    THE   ASSEMBLY. 

The  bond  ^hich  connected  the  three  Synods  of  Western 
New  York  and  the  Synod  of  the  Western  Reserve  with 
the  General  Assembly  being  now  sundered,  it  was  a  grave 
question  for  the  Assembly  to  consider,  whether  they 
should  proceed  to  declare  this  fact,  and  thence  regard 
and  treat  those  Synods  as  being  separated  from  the  Pres- 
byterian Church,  and  of  course  no  longer  amenable  to 
the  Assembly ;  or  whether  the  separation  of  the  Congre- 
gational from  the  Presbyterian  materials,  should  be^ifected 
through  the  action  of  Presbyteries  and  churches.  There 
were  in  those  Presbyteries  ministers  and  churches,  or  at 
least  parts  of  churches,  thoroughly  Presbyterian,  whose 
rights  and  privileges  were  in  some  way  to  be  provided 
for;  but  the  number  of  Congregationalists  was  so  large 
as  to  render  it  very  difficult,  if  not  impracticable,  to  carry 
out  the  views  of  the  Assembly  through  the  action  of 
Presbyteries  or  churches.  On  the  other  hand,  there  were 
in  some  Synods  not  owing  their  existence  to  the  Plan  of 
Union,  a  few  Congregational  churches,  whose  future  rela- 
tions were  to  be  determined  by  some  method  of  proceeding 
to  be  adopted  by  the  Assembly  ;  and  would  it  not  be  best 
to  pursue  a  uniform  course  with  regard  to  all  ?  These 
were  questions  which  demanded  serious  deliberation. 
Accordingly  no  further  action  was  taken  on  this  subject 
for  a  day  or  two  ;  and  the  Assembly  resolved  to  introduce 
judicial  process  against  "  such  inferior  judicatories  as 
should  appear  to  be  charged  by  common  fame  with  the 
toleration  of  gross  errors  in  doctrine  and  disorders  in 
practice."     This  resolution  was  carried  by  a  majority  of 


226  OLD    AND    NEW    THEOLOGY. 

6  only — 122  voting  in  the  negative  and  102  entering  their 
protest  against  it !  What  hope  was  there  that  citations 
issued  under  such  circumstances  would  be  of  any  avail  ? 
This  vote,  and  the  previous  one  abrogating  the  Plan  of 
Union,  (on  which  110  voted  in  the  negative),  showed  also 
how  ineffectual  would  be  the  attempt  to  reach  the  evils 
complained  of,  by  directing  the  Presbyteries  or  churches 
to  take  action  based  on  the  abrogation  of  that  Plan.  A 
determination  was  manifested  by  the  commissioners  from 
those  Synods,  and  by  the  New-school  party  in  general, 
to  adhere  to  the  Plan,  and  to  preserve  the  integrity  of 
the  churches  which  had  been  formed  under  it. 

Judicial  proceedings  appearing  to  be  impracticable,  a 
proposition  was  next  made,  on  the  part  of  the  Old-school, 
for  a  voluntary  separation  of  the  two  parties  in  the 
church,  and  a  committee  of  ten  was  appointed,  five  on 
each  side,  to  confer  together  and  report  to  the  Assembly 
a  plan  for  an  amicable  division.  This  committee  agreed 
upon  "the  propriety  of  a  voluntary  separation,"  "the 
corporate  funds,  the  names  to  be  held  by  each  denomina- 
tion,* the  records  of  the  church,  and  its  boards  and  in- 
stitutions." But  they  differed  "as  to  the  propriety  of 
entering  at  once  by  the  Assembly  upon  the  division ;" 
"as  to  the  power  of  the  Assembly  to  take  effectual  initi- 
ative steps,  as  proposed  by  the  majority" — i.  e.  by  the 
Old-school  members  ;  the  New  wishing  to  refer  the  ques- 
tion to  the  Presbyteries ;  and  "  as  to  the  breaking  up  of 
the  succession  of  that  General  Assembly,  so  that  neither 

*  The  committee  agreed  that  the  Old-school  body  should  retain 
the  name  Presbyterian,  and  the  New  bo  called  American  Presby- 
terian. 


OLD    AND    NEW    THEOLOGY.  227 

of  the  New  Assemblies  proposed,  be  considered  that  pro- 
per body  continued ;"  wliicb  was  the  plan  of  the  New- 
school  portion  of  the  committee ;  but  in  regard  to  which 
the  Old-school  portion  "  could  not  consent  to  anything 
that  should  even  imply  the  final  dissolution  of  the  Pres- 
byterian Church  as  now  organized  in  this  country ;" 
though  they  "were  perfectly  disposed  to  do  all  that  the 
utmost  liberality  Could  demand,  and  to  use  in  all  cases 
such  expressions  as  should  be  wholly  unexceptionable.'* 
The  committee  failing  to  agree,  each  portion  presented  to 
the  Assembly  a  separate  report,  and  the  subject  was 
dropped. 

The  Assembly  then  proceeded  to  carry  into  effect  the 
resolution  before  adopted,  abrogating  the  Plan  of  Union. 
They  declared  first,  the  Synod  of  the  "Western  Reserve 
to  be  "  no  longer  a  part  of  the  Presbyterian  Church  in 
the  United  States  of  America  ;"  and  afterwards  adopted 
a  similar  resolution  with  regard  to  the  Synods  of  Utica, 
Geneva,  and  Genessee.  Though  the  Assembly  assigned 
as  their  reason  for  this  course,  and  their  "  urgency  for 
the  immediate  decision  of  it,"  the  "gross  disorders  which 
were  ascertained  to  have  prevailed  in  those  Synods ;" 
they  nevertheless  affirmed  as  to  their  present  action,  that 
they  had  "no  intention,  by  these  resolutions,"  ....  "to 
aff*ect  in  any  way  the  ministerial  standing  of  any  mem- 
bers of  either  of  said  Synods  ;  nor  to  disturb  the  pastoral 
relations  of  any  church  ;  nor  to  interfere  with  the  duties 
or  relations  of  private  Christians  in  their  respective  con- 
gregations ;  but  only  to  declare  and  determine  according 
to  the  truth  and  necessity  of  the  case,  and  by  virtue  of 
the  full  authority  existing  in  [the  Assembly]  for  that  pur- 
pose, the  relation  of  all  said  Synods  and  all  their  constit- 


228  OLD    AND    NEW    THEOLOGY. 

nent  parts  to  that  body,  and  to  the  Presbyterian  Church 
in  the  United  States."  The  Assembly  also  provided  that 
any  ministers  and  churches  in  those  Synods  that  were 
strictly  Presbyterian  in  doctrine  and  order,  might  be  ex- 
empted from  the  operation  of  these  resolutions,  by  apply- 
ing to  the  Presbyteries  in  our  connection  most  convenient 
to  them ;  and  that  Presbyteries  of  this  character  might 
be  exempted,  by  making,  a  statement  of  their  case  to  the 
next  General  Assembly. 

The  Assembly  likewise  dissolved  the  Third  Presbytery 
of  Philadelphia,  and  "recommended"  that  the  American 
Home  Missionary  Society  and  the  American  Education 
Society  "  should  cease  to  operate  within  any  of  our 
churches."  These  measures  require  no  special  vindica- 
tion at  present — as  the  authority  of  the  Assembly  to 
adopt  them  was  not  denied  by  our  New-school  brethren ; 
though  for  other  reasons  they  were  opposed  to  their 
adoption.  The  motives  w^hich  influenced  the  Assembly 
to  their  action  with  regard  to  those  Societies,  have  been 
alluded  to  already  in  the  preceding  chapter,  and  also  in 
the  Preface  to  the  first  edition,  published  in  1838. 

With  regard  to  the  propriety  of  those  acts,  styled 
opprobriously,  in  New-school  prints,  the  "exscinding" 
acts,  the  discussion  of  two  questions  will  embrace  all  that 
is  necessary  to  a  correct  decision  of  the  case.  The  first 
is.  Was  it  a  legitimate  and  constitutional  mode  of  pro- 
ceeding, for  the  Assembly  to  act  upon  Synods  as  such  ? 
And  the  second,  Had  those  four  Synods  any  such  con- 
nection with  the  Plan  of  Union,  as  to  be  virtually  sepa- 
rated from  the  Assembly  and  the  Presbyterian  Church, 
by  its  abrogation  ?  As  to  the  first — According  to  our 
form  of  government,  the  higher  judicatories  possess  the 


OLD    AND    NEWTHEOLOGT.  229 

power  of  review  and  control  over  the  lower ;  and  in 
carrying  out  this  principle,  the  ordinary  mode  of  action 
is  for  the  next  higher  to  take  cognizance  of  that  which  is 
immediately  below  it.  The  Presbytery  acts  on  the  church, 
by  directing  the  session ;  and  the  Synod  on  both  the  ses- 
sion and  church,  by  an  order  directed  to  the  Presbytery. 
In  like  manner,  the  General  Assembly  usually  acts  on 
the  lower  judicatories  through  the  Synods.  Though  that 
body  is  not  bound  invariably  to  this  course,  it  will  not  be 
denied  by  any  acquainted  with  our  Constitution,  that  this 
is  not  only  a  legitimate  one,  but  that  it  ought  not  to  be 
departed  from,  except  for  special  reasons.  Suppose,  in 
the  case  under  consideration,  the  Assembly  had  attempted 
to  act  upon  the  Presbyteries,  or  (as  some  maintained  they 
ought  to  have  done)  directly  upon  the  churches.  In  the 
former  case  it  might  have  been  said,  they  had  assumed 
the  prerogatives  of  the  Synod,  and  in  the  latter,  that 
they  had  taken  into  their  hands  a  work  which  belonged 
exclusively  to  the  Presbyteries.  Those  who  opposed  the 
measures  of  the  Assembly,  would  have  objected  with  as 
much  earnestness,  we  have  reason  to  believe,  to  the  other 
course.  Many  of  them  did  virtually  object  to  it  soon 
after  in  their  Presbyteries,  by  the  adoption  of  resolutions 
"  assuring  the  churches  under  their  care,  that  the  Plan 
of  Union,  so  far  as  they  were  concerned,  was  still  in  force, 
and  its  stipulations  would  be  preserved  by  them  invio- 
late." 

It  was  urged  against  the  application  of  the  vote  to 
Synods,  that  those  bodies,  as  such,  could  not  have  been 
formed  on  the  Plan  of  Union,  but  were  regularly  consti- 
tuted according  to  the  directions  of  the  Book  ;  and  there- 
fore they  could  not  be  affected  by  the  abrogation  of  the 
20 


230  OLD    AND    NEW    THEOLOGY. 

Plan.  As  to  the  manner  in  wliich  Synods  are  brought 
into  existence,  we  admit  that  all  of  them  except  the  first, 
must  necessarily  be  organized  alike,  viz. :  by  the  division 
of  other  Synods — and  again,  that  they  all  must  necessarily 
be  alike,  in  being  composed  of  at  least  three  Presbyte- 
ries. But  suppose  one  or  two  of  the  three  Presbyteries 
of  which  a  particular  Synod  is  composed,  though  they 
bear  the  name  of  Presbyteries,  are  in  reality  Congrega- 
tional Associations — would  the  Synod  in  this  case  be 
regularly  constituted  ?  Or  suppose  the  Presbyteries 
generally  of  which  it  is  composed,  though  consisting  in 
part  of  Presbyterian  churches,  have  in  them  so  large  a 
number  of  Congregationalists,  as  to  give  to  the  Presby- 
teries a  Congregational  character — would  a  Synod  com- 
posed of  such  Presbyteries  be  a  regular  Synod  according 
to  our  Constitution  ?  Must  it  not,  on  the  contrary,  be 
styled,  speaking  in  strict  propriety,  a  Congregational 
Synod^  however  agreeable  to  the  Constitution  may  have 
been  the  7nere  form  of  its  erection  ?  On  the  same  prin- 
ciple, though  churches  alone,  in  the  first  instance,  could 
be  organized  on  the  Plan  of  Union,  yet  as  churches,  in 
connection  with  their  pastors,  compose  Presbyteries,  and 
Presbyteries  compose  Synods,  if  such  a  number  of  the 
churches  are  formed  on  this  Plan  as  to  control  the  action 
and  policy  of  the  Presbyteries  and  Synods,  the  latter, 
for  aught  we  can  perceive  to  the  contrary,  must  also  be 
regarded  as  organized  on  the  Plan  of  Union. 

Again : — it  is  objected  that  this  mode  of  applying  the 
act  operated  unjustly  ;  as  many  of  the  churches  in  those 
Synods  were  strictly  Presbyterian.  If  this  objection  be 
valid,  it  would  eflfectually  have  closed  the  door  against 
any  action  whatever ;  except  by  dissolving  the  churches 


OLD    AND    NEW    THEOLOGY.  231 

formed  on  the  Plan  of  Union,  and  directing  them  to 
organize  anew — at  least,  all  such  churches  as  are  partly 
composed  of  Presbyterian  members.  There  would  be 
the  same  reason  to  complain  of  the  injustice  of  an  act, 
which  disowns  a  Presbyterian  member,  as  of  one  that  dis- 
owns a  church.  It  is  true  that  the  mode  of  remedying 
an  evil  by  acting  upon  communities,  often  if  not  always 
subjects  individuals  among  them  to  temporary  inconveni- 
ence, who,  if  they  were  not  thus  connected,  could  not 
justly  be  brought  into  such  circumstances.  But,  if  the 
measure  is  necessary  for  the  public  good,  and  provision 
is  made  by  which  (if  they  avail  themselves  of  it)  they 
will  not  in  the  end  be  affected  injuriously,  they  ought  not 
to  complain — especially  if  the  evil  to  be  remedied  could 
not  be  reached  in  any  other  way. 

In  order  to  ascertain  whether  those  acts  were  ^wsf,  it 
is  important  to  understand  their  true  nature.  Were  they 
acts  of  excommunication  as  some  affirm  ?  or  did  they  leave 
the  disowned  Synods  in  this  respect,  just  as  they  stood 
before  ?  The  effect  of  excommunication  is  to  suspend 
ministers  from  their  clerical  functions,  and  church  mem- 
bers from  Christian  communion.  Was  this  done,  or  de- 
signed to  be  done  by  the  General  Assembly  ?  If  their 
disclaimer  at  the  time  of  adopting  those  resolutions  be 
not  deemed  sufficient,  the  uniform  conduct  of  the  Old- 
school  towards  the  New  in  their  official  and  Christian 
intercourse  with  them,  has  been  from  that  time  to  the 
present,  a  standing  rebuke  to  those  who  attempt  to  excite 
popular  indignation  against  the  Assembly,  on  the  ground 
that  those  Synods  have  been  "exscinded,"  "cut  off," 
"expelled,"  without  citation  or  trial.  Those  acts,  it  is 
true,  implied  some  censure.     But  its  severity  was  greatly 


232  OLD    AND    NEW    THEOLOGY. 

softened,  and  with  regard  to  the  sound  portion  of  them, 
entirely  removed  by  the  form  in  which  it  was  adminis- 
tered. There  was  no  citation  or  trial,  because  all  judicial 
proceedings  were  dropped ;  and  the  Assembly  simply 
said  to  them,  "  We  will  not  disturb  your  ecclesiastical 
relations  as  they  exist  among  yourselves ;  but  we  cannot 
consent  to  have  the  Presbyterian  Church  revolutionized 
and  remodelled  through  your  instrumentality ;  especially, 
as  you  came  into  it  at  first  only  by  courtesy  and  compro- 
mise ;  and  we  therefore  regard  it  as  right  and  proper  to 
inform  you,  that  from  this  time  forward,  you  shall  not  be 
represented  in  our  body."  Is  not  this  a  fair  statement 
of  what  the  Assembly  did  ?  If  so,  (and  we  believe  it 
cannot  be  successfully  controverted),  we  cannot  perceive 
any  substantial  reason  for  the  charge  of  injustice — es-, 
pecially  as  the  individuals  and  chui-ches  who  (as  is  alleged) 
ought  to  have  been  excepted,  were  expressly  informed, 
that  the  door  was  left  open  for  them  to  reunite  with  the. 
Assembly,  if  they  should  think  this  to  be  more  for  their 
edification  and  for  the  glory  of  God,  than  to  remain  con- 
nected with  those  Synods.  Chief  Justice  Gibson,  in 
giving  the  opinion  of  the  Court  in  banc  in  1839,  observed 
as  follows :  "  The  apparent  injustice  of  the  measure  arises 
from  the  contemplation  of  it  as  a  judicial  sentence,  pro- 
nounced against  parties  who  were  neither  cited  nor  heard, 
which  it  evidently  v^as  not.  Even  as  a  legislative  act,  it 
may  have  been  a  hard  one,  though  certainly  constitu- 
tional, and  strictly  just." 

If  then  the  Assembly  acted  constitutionally  and  justly 
in  applying  those  resolutions  to  Synods  taken  as  a  body, 
the  only  question  which  remains  to  be  settled  is.  Had 
those  four  Synods  such  a  connection  with  the  Plan  of 


OLD    AND    NEW    THEOLOGY.  233 

Union,  that  their  separation  from  the  General  Assembly 
and  the  Presbyterian  Church  was  a  legitimate  consequence 
of  its  abrogation  ?  With  regard  to  the  Synod  of  the 
Western  Reserve,  there  is  no  ground  for  doubt.  A  mem- 
ber of  that  Synod,  the  Rev.  J.  Seward,  in  an  article 
communicated  to  the  Ohio  Observer,  in  1837,  wrote  as 
follows  :  "  The  Presbytery  of  Grand  River,  agreeably  to 
the  order  of  the  Synod  of  Pittsburgh,  was  organized  in 
the  autumn  of  1814,  and  as  it  covered  ground  on  which 
a  union  had  been  established  between  Presbyterians  and 
Congregationalists,  according  to  the  regulations  adopted 
by  the  General  Assembly  of  the  Presbyterian  Church,  it 
was  deemed  necessary  that  this  Presbytery  should  be  so 
organized  as  to  consolidate  and  perpetuate  this  union, 
and  thus  carry  out  the  recommendations  and  injunctions 
of  the  General  Assembly.  To  accomplish  this  object,  a 
number  of  articles,  adapted  to  the  peculiar  situation  of 
the  churches  in  this  region,  were  adopted  by  the  Presby- 
tery, and  afterwards  by  the  Presbyteries  of  Portage  and 
Huron,  as  they  were  respectively  organized.  The  design 
of  these  articles  was  to  secure  to  all  connected  with  these 
Presbyteries  the  rights  and  privileges  pledged  in  the 
regulations  adopted  by  the  General  Assembly  and  the 
General  Association  in  1801."  ....  "At  a  meeting  of 
the  General  Assembly  in  1825,  a  petition  was  presented 
for  a  division  of  the  Synod  of  Pittsburgh,  and  the  erec- 
tion of  a  new  Synod,  to  be  composed  of  the  three  Pres- 
byteries above  named,  and  to  be  known  by  the  name  of 
the  Synod  of  the  Western  Reserve.  This  request  was 
granted."  ....  From  this  statement  it  will  be  perceived 
that  the  three  Presbyteries  of  which  this  Synod  was  com 
posed,  were  formed  explicitly  on  the  Plan  of  Union 
20* 


234  OLD    AND    NEW    THEOLOGY. 

Had  It  not  been  for  that  Plan,  neither  they  nor  the  Synod 
could  have  been  organized. 

The  oldest  of  the  three  Synods  in  Western  New  York 
is  Geneva ;  which  was  constituted  in  1812,  by  a  division 
of  the  Synod  of  Albany,  and  consisted  at  that  time  of 
three  Presbyteries,  viz. :  Geneva,  Cayuga,  and  Onon- 
daga. The  Geneva  Presbytery  was  formed  from  the  Pres- 
bytery of  Oneida  in  1805  ;  at  which  time  the  latter  Pres- 
bytery reported  twenty  churches,  about  one-half  of  which 
appear  to  have  been  Congregational ;  and  as  that  part 
of  its  territory  which  was  set  off  to  form  the  Geneva 
Presbytery,  was  particularly  intended  for  the  operation 
of  the  Plan  of  Union,  it  is  reasonable  to  infer  that  a  large 
proportion  of  the  churches  belonging  to  the  new  Presby- 
tery were  Congregational.  But  our  information  with 
regard  to  it,  is  not  so  definite  as  concerning  the  other  two 
Presbyteries.  In  1808,  the  Synod  of  Albany,  by  per- 
mission of  the  General  Assembly,  received  the  Middle 
Association  of  the  Western  District,  as  a  constituent  part 
of  that  Synod.  In  1809^  it  reported  to  the  Synod  twenty- 
one  congregations ;  and  in  the  Minutes  of  the  General 
Assembly  for  that  year  and  the  year  following,  the  Asso- 
ciation is  named  in  the  statistical  account.  In  1810,  the 
Presbytery  of  Geneva  and  the  *'  Middle  Association" 
made  a  joint  request  to  Synod  to  be  organized  into  three 
Presbyteries,  which  was  accordingly  done.  By  this  ar- 
rangement, that  part  of  Geneva  Presbytery  which  lay 
east  of  Cayuga  lake,  was  detached  from  it  (containing, 
however,  but  a  single  church),  and  in  connection  with  the 
churches  belonging  to  the  Association,  two  Presbyteries 
were  formed,  viz. :  Cayuga  and  Onondaga ;  the  former 
having  fifteen  and  the  latter  thirteen  churches.     Eight 


OLD    AND    NEW    THEOLOGY.  235 

years  afterwards  (1819)  these  two  Presbyteries  were 
doubled  by  accessions  from  the  Onondaga  Association, 
which  was  dissolved  and  its  ministers  and  churches  re- 
ceived into  these  Presbyteries  on  the  Plan  of  Union. 

Several  of  the  Presbyteries  which  were  subsequently 
added  to  the  Synod  had  a  similar  origin.  One  of  them 
(Cortland)  can  be  traced  to  the  Middle  Association.  Two 
others,  viz. :  Chenango  and  Delaware,  derived  their  ma- 
terials from  the  Union  Association  ;  which  was  dissolved, 
or  rather  "broken  up,"  by  the  action  of  its  ministers; 
who  without  the  consent  or  knowledge  of  their  churches, 
joined  the  Otsego  Presbytery ;  immediately  after  which, 
the  Presbytery  applied  to  the  General  Assembly,  to  form 
them  into  a  new  Presbytery,  to  be  called  Chenango ; 
which  request  being  granted,  the  Presbytery  was  formed 
in  1826,  consisting  of  ministers  only.  A  plan  of  union 
was  adopted  by  the  new  Presbytery  on  the  basis  of  the 
action  of  the  General  Assembly  in  1808,  soon  after 
which  most  of  their  churches  united  with  the  Presbytery. 
The  Delaware  Presbytery  was  formed  from  a  part  of 
Chenango,  and  of  course  had  the  same  origin. 

From  these  facts,  it  appears  that  the  Synod  of  Geneva 
not  only  grew  out  of  the  Plan  of  Union,  but  that  when 
it  was  organized,  it  bad  not  sufficient  materials  to  form  a 
Con§titutio7ial  Synod.  Two  of  its  three  original  Presby- 
teries, were  the  twin  daughters  of  the  Middle  Associa- 
tion, whose  name  had  been  dropped,  but  the  organization 
of  its  churches  continued  to  be  substantially  the  same  as 
before.  Nor  did  the  growth  of  the  Synod  for  fifteen 
years  afterwards  materially  change  its  character  in  this 
respect.  Two  other  Congregational  associations  were 
dissolved  during  this  period,  and  without  any  change  in 


236  OLD    AND    NEW    THEOLOGY.' 

their  form  of  government  as  churclies,  or  with  very  slight 
ones  it  may  be  in  some  cases,  were  received  into  the  dif- 
ferent Presbyteries  of  this  Synod.  The  reader  must 
recollect  that  we  do  not  mention  these  things  as  a  crime, 
but  only  to  show  what  is  the  constitutional  relation  of 
this  Synod  to  the  Presbyterian  Church, 

The  Synod  of  Genessee  was  constituted  in  1821,  by  a 
division  of  the  Synod  of  Geneva,  and  consisted  of  four 
Presbyteries,  viz. :  Niagara,  Ontario,  Genessee,  and  Ko- 
Chester.  We  name  them  in  the  order  of  their  organiza- 
tion. The  first  two  were  formed  in  1817,  from  the  Pres- 
bytery of  Geneva ;  and  the  last  two  in  1819,  from  the 
Presbytery  of  Ontario.  The  Genessee  Presbytery,  at 
the  time  or  soon  after  it  was  formed,  adopted  a  paper 
containing  an  exposition  of  the  Plan  of  Union,  and  tran- 
scribed it  in  their  Presbyterial  Records,  for  the  informa- 
tion of  the  churches  under  their  care.  Whether  any  of 
the  other  Presbyteries  adopted  a  similar  course  on  this 
subject,  we  are  not  informed.  But  from  the  testimony 
of  personal  friends  and  acquaintances,  who  then  resided 
in  the  bounds  of  this  Synod,  we  feel  no  hesitation  in  say- 
ing, that  the  prevailing  impression  in  all  the  Presbyteries 
was,  that  they  grew  up  under  the  Plan  of  Union ;  and 
that  previously  to  1837,  the  churches  in  general  were  so 
much  attached  to  this  Plan,  viewed  as  a  modification  of 
Presbyterian  government,  that  rather  than  give  it  up, 
they  would  have  seceded  from  the  Presbyterian  Church, 
and  have  become  wholly  Congregational. 

The  Synod  of  Utica  was  constituted  in  1829,  by  a 
division  of  the  Synod  of  Albany,  and  consisted  of  five 
Presbyteries,  viz. :  Oneida,  Watertown,  Otsego,  St.  Law- 
rence, and  Oswego.     Though  this  Synod  is  the  youngest 


OLD    AND    NEW    THEOLOGY.  237 

of  the  three  in  Western  New  York,  one  of  its  Presbyte- 
ries, viz. :  Oneida,  is  the  oldest  of  all.  It  was  formed 
from  a  part  of  the  Presbytery  of  Albany  in  1802,  one 
year  after  the  date  of  the  Plan  of  Union.  It  consisted 
at  that  time  of  six  ministers.  No  churches  are  named ; 
but  from  an  examination  of  the  statistical  reports  of  the 
Presbytery  of  Albany  up  to  this  time,  it  will  appear  that 
there  were  five  or  six  churches  embraced  in  the  territory 
assigned  to  the  new  Presbytery.  In  1803  it  had  seven- 
teen, and  in  1805,  twenty  churches,  about  one-half  of 
which  were  Congregational.  The  next  year  it  reported 
but  eight,  the  others  having  been  detached  to  form  the 
Presbytery  of  Geneva.  From  this  time  there  was  a 
gradual  increase  till  1816,  when  there  was  an  accession 
of  twelve  ministers  and  nine  churches.  All  the  ministers 
except  one  were  from  Congregational  Associations ;  and 
all  the  churches,  it  is  believed,  were  Congregational. 
This  large  accession  was  owing  to  the  dissolution  of  the 
Oneida  Association,  which  has  been  represented  as  an 
interesting  and  flourishing  body ;  but  as  the  Plan  of  Union 
opened  a  door  for  their  admission  into  the  Presbyterian 
Church,  and  as  the  ministers  were  desirous  of  forming 
such  a  connection,  the  people  were  persuaded  to  yield. 
The  Association  was  accordingly  dissolved,  and  most  of 
its  ministers  and  churches  joined  the  Presbytery. 

The  Presbytery  of  Watertown  (called  at  first  St.  Law- 
rence) was  constituted  from  the  Oneida  Presbytery  in 
1816,  consisting  of  five  ministers  and  two  churches.*  In 
1819,  the  number  of  churches  reported  to  the  General 
Assembly  was  eleven,  seven  of  which  were  Congrega- 
tional. Their  history  in  this  respect,  from  that  time  on- 
ward, we  are  unable  to  give.     But  the  Congregational 


238  OLD    AND    NEW    THEOLOGY.: 

character  of  the  Presbytery  taken  as  a  body,  may  be  in- 
ferred from  a  fact  related  to  us  in  1834  or  1835,  by  a 
clerical  brother  who  had  resided  ten  or  twelve  months  in 
that  section  of  the  State ;  viz. :  that  a  number  of  minis- 
ters in  that  Presbytery  belonged  to  a  Congregational  As- 
sociation, and  were  acting  members  both  of  the  Presby- 
tery and  Association  at  the  same  time ;  that  in  one  case 
a  candidate,  who  was  refused  license  by  the  Presbytery, 
applied  immediately  afterwards  to  a  part  of  the  same 
men,  who,  laying  aside  their  Presbyterial  character,  and 
acting  in  the  capacity  of  Congregational  ministers,  made 
out  and  subscribed  his  licensure.     The  Otsego  and  Oswego 
Presbyteries  were  also  constituted  from  the  Presbytery 
of  Oneida ;  the  former  in  1819,  and  the  latter  in  1822. 
As  the  materials  for  these    Presbyteries  were   derived 
mainly  from  the  Oneida  Association,  an  account  of  which 
has  just  been  given,  their  connection  with  the  Plan  of 
Union   is  sufficiently  manifest,   without    any  particular 
statement  concerning  their  churches.     In  1837,  one-half 
of  those  in  Otsego  Presbytery  were  Congregational,  and 
in  the  Oswego  Presbytery  two-thirds. 

The  St.  Lawrence  Presbytery  (called  at  first  Ogdens- 
burg)  was  constituted  in  1821,  by  a  division  of  the  Pres- 
bytery of  Champlain.  The  latter  Presbytery,  previous 
to  this  time,  extended  over  the  whole  territory  of  Northern 
New  York,  and  was  in  a  great  degree  missionary  ground. 
Many  of  the  churches  in  that  region  were  organized  by 
an  excellent  and  laborious  Congregational  missionary,* 
whom  we  have  heard  relate  many  thrilling  incidents  con- 
cerning his  labours,  his  discouragements,  and  his  success. 
We  heard  him  also,  at  the  same  time,  express  his  partial- 

*  He  belonged  to  the  Northern  Associated  Presbytery. 


OLD    AND    NEW    THEOLOGY.  239 

ity  for  the  Congregational  mode  of  government ;  and 
listened  to  one  of  his  sermons,  which  he  read  to  several 
persons  present,  and  which  had  been  delivered  by  him  on 
a  former  occasion,  a  part  of  which  was  designed  to  show, 
by  way  of  contrast,  the  superior  excellence  of  Congrega- 
tionalism. Some  of  the  churches  which  he  formed  were, 
perhaps,  Presbyterian  ;  but  the  major  part  were  undoubt- 
edly  Congregational ;  and  as  those  churches  composed 
afterwards  (at  least  in  part)  the  St.  Lawrence  Presbytery, 
it  is  highly  probable  that  it  had  for  its  basis  the  Plan  of 
Union. 

We  have  thus  noticed  each  of  the  Presbyteries  belong- 
ing to  this  Synod,  and  the  result  is,  that  all  of  them  except 
one  were  Congregational  in  their  origin,  and  continued 
to  be  more  or  less  so  in  their  elements,  form  and  spirit, 
after  they  were  constituted  as  Presbyteries.  And  the 
same  we  have  found  to  be  true  concerning  the  other  two 
Synods.  If  this  statement  needs  corroborating  by  other 
proof,  we  can  adduce  the  testimony  of  one  of  the  oldest 
ministers  in  Western  New  York,  the  Rev.  Mr.  Hotchkin, 
author  of  a  History  of  the  Churches  there,  and  a  mem- 
ber of  the  Auburn  Convention  in  1837.  In  a  speech 
made  by  him  on  that  occasion,  he  said  that  "  the  churches 
in  the  three  Synods  of  Western  New  York  (with  the  ex- 
ception of  two  or  three  which  were  formed  on  the  plan 
of  1801)  came  in  on  the  plan  of  1808,  when  the  Northern 
Associated  Presbytery,  and  the  Middle  Association  of  the 
Western  District,  were  received  by  the  Synod  of  Albany.* 

*  The  action  of  that  Synod,  so  far  as  it  related  to  the  Northern 
Associated  Presbytery,  did  not  go  into  effect  for  many  years.  The 
older  ministers  belonging  to  this  body  were  opposed  to  the  change; 
and  out  of  regard  to  their  feelings,  the  Presbytery  was  not  dissolved 


240  OLD    AND    NEW    THEOLOGT. 

In  1809,  the  delegates  from  the  Middle  Association  were 
Teceived  in  the  General  Assembly,  and  their  names,  to- 
gether with  the  name  of  the  Association,  appear  on  the 
minutes  of  the  Assembly  of  that  year.  But  the  Asso- 
ciation soon  lost  its  name,  and  in  connection  with  the 
Presbytery  of  Geneva,  which  was  organized  several  years, 
three  Presbyteries  were  formed  out  of  it,  viz. :  Geneva, 
Cayuga,  and  Onondaga.  The  Onondaga  Association 
was  afterwards  dissolved,  by  the  advice  of  the  Rev.  Mr. 
Chapman,  and  received  by  the  Synod  of  Geneva  on  the 
same  plan."  Speaking  of  these  churches  having  for 
several  years  waived  their  right  (as  he  regarded  it)  to  be 
represented  in  the  General  Assembly,  in  order  to  avoid 
difficulty,  he  said  "  that  he  had  great  influence  in  bring- 
ing about  the  change ;  and  that  if  he  had  not  exerted 
his  influence  in  the  case,  instead  of  there  being  three 
Synods,  there  would  probably  have  been  now  (1837)  but 
one  Presbytery." 

The  connection  of  those  four  Synods  with  the  Presby- 
terian Church,  on  the  basis  of  the  Plan  of  Union,  having 
been  (as  we  think)  sufficiently  established,  it  follows,  that 
the  action  of  the  General  Assembly  concerning  them  was 
authorized,  if  not  required,  by  the  operation  of  the  pre- 
vious resolution  adopted  by  the  Assembly  abrogating  that 
Plan.  In  this  conclusion  we  are  sustained  by  the  Court 
in  banc  for  the  State  of  Pennsylvania,  whose  opinion  was 

until  they  had  either  died  or  consented  to  join  some  other  Congre- 
gational Association ;  at  which  time,  (not  earlier  than  1815  or 
1816),  the  one  or  two  ministers  that  remained,  united  with  the 
Presbytery  of  Albany.  Not  long  afterwards,  eight  or  ten  of  the 
churches  joined  the  same  Presbytery — about  half  of  them  having 
previously  changed  their  organization,  by  appointing  ruling  eldera. 


OLD    AND    NEW    THEOLOGY.  241 

delivered  by  Chief  Justice  Gibson,  in  1839.  His  language 
is  as  follows :  ''  Surely  this  [Plan  of  Union]  was  not  in- 
tended to  outlast  the  inability  of  the  respective  sects  to 
provide  separately  for  themselves,  or  to  perpetuate  the 
innovations  on  Presbyterian  government  which  it  was 
calculated  to  produce.  It  was  obviously  a  missionary 
arrangement  from  the  first ;  and  they  who  built  up  Pres- 
byteries and  Synods  on  the  basis  of  it,  had  no  reason  to 
expect  that  their  structures  would  survive  it,  or  that  Con- 
gregationalists  might,  by  force  of  it,  gain  a  foothold  in 
the  Presbyterian  Church,  despite  of  Presbyterian  dis- 
cipline. They  embraced  it  with  all  its  defeasible  proper- 
ties plainly  put  before  them ;  and  the  power  which  con- 
stituted it  might  fairly  repeal  it,  and  dissolve  the  bodies 
that  had  grown  out  of  it,  whenever  the  good  of  the  church 
should  seem  to  require  it." 

As  we  have  quoted  a  part  of  the  opinion  of  the  Court 
in  this  case,  it  may  not  be  amiss  to  make  a  remark  or  two 
concerning  its  final  decision.  The  trial  before  the  Court 
of  Nisi  Prius  resulted  in  favour  of  the  New-school  party ; 
in  view  of  which  the  closing  words  of  the  opinion  delivered 
by  the  Court  in  banc  were—"  Rule  for  a  new  trial  made 
absolute."  This  has  been  represented  in  New-school 
publications  as  deciding  nothing  in  favour  of  the  Old- 
school  except  to  grant  them  an  opportunity  for  another 
hearing ;  whereas  it  was  a  virtual  decision  of  the  whole 
case  in  their  favour.  Every  important  principle  involved 
in  it  was  fully  discussed,  and  the  concluding  sentences, 
preceding  the  grant  for  a  new  trial,  were  as  follows : 
"  Other  corroborative  views  have  been  suggested  ;  but  it 
is  difficult  to  compress  a  decision  of  the  leading  points  in 
this  case  into  the  old  fashioned  limits  of  a  judicial  opinion. 
21 


242  OLD    AND    NEW    THEOLOGY. 

The  preceding  observations,  however,  are  deemed  enough 
to  show  the  grounds  on  which  we  hold  that  the  Assembly 
which  met  in  the  First  Presbyterian  Church  [i.  e.  the 
New-school  Assembly)  was  not  the  legitimate  successor 
of  the  Assembly  of  1837,  and  that  the  defendants  (the 
Old-school)  are  not  guilty  of  the  usurpation  with  which 
they  are  charged."  Were  these  words  intended  to  decide 
nothing  touching  the  merits  of  the  case  ?  The  New-school, 
and  not  the  Old,  w^ere  the  plaintiffs ;  and  hence  the 
former,  and  not  the  latter,  were  the  party  to  renew  the 
prosecution,  if  a  new  trial  was  ever  to  be  had.  Why  did 
they  not  recommence  the  suit  ?  For  this  obvious  reason, 
that  there  was  no  hope  of  success.  Every  point  on  which 
the  decision  of  the  case  depended,  was  ruled  in  favour  of 
the  Old-school  Assembly. 

In  1838  the  commissioners  appointed  by  the  Presbyte- 
ries belonging  to  the  four  Synods  above  named,  and  those 
from  other  Presbyteries  who  chose  to  act  with  them, 
formed  a  separate  General  Assembly,  and  appealed  to 
the  civil  court  to  sustain  them  in  their  new  position.  The 
result  of  the  suit  we  have  just  noticed.  There  being  now 
two  bodies,  the  Old-school  Assembly,  in  order  to  perfect 
those  measures  of  reform  which  had  been  commenced  the 
preceding  year,  and  to  make  special  provision  for  the 
future,  adopted  a  paper  containing  three  acts ;  which  pro- 
vided for  the  reception  of  all  such  ministers  and  church 
members  as  were  thrown  by  circumstances  with  the  Pres- 
byteries represented  in  the  new  Assembly,  but  who  might 
desire  to  remain  with  the  Old-school  body ;  and  directed 
them  particularly  what  course  to  pursue  in  order  to  be 
recognized  by  the  Assembly.  These  acts  were  designed 
to  operate,  on  the  one  hand,  as  a  check  to  the  continu- 


OLD    AND    NEW    THEOLOGY.  243 

ance  in  our  communion  of  any  who  might  entertain  loose 
doctrinal  views ;  and  on  the  other,  as  an  expression  of 
cordial  welcome  to  the  admission  of  all  w^ho  adopted  the 
Confession  of  Faith  according  to  its  obvious  sense.  Some 
words  and  phrases  which  they  contained,  were  unfortu- 
nately ambiguous  ;  on  which  account  objections  were  made 
to  them  by  various  persons,  who  understood  them  as  re- 
quiring those  who  adhered  to  the  Old-school  Assembly  to 
express  their  approbation  of  the  acts  of  the  Assembly  in 
1837  and  1838.  Objections  were  also  made  to  them  on 
other  grounds.  An  explanatory  resolution  was  accord- 
ingly adopted  in  1843,  declaring  that  ''  in  requiring  an 
adherence  to  our  church  on  the  basis  of  the  Assembly  of 
1837  and  1838,  they  (the  Assembly)  did  not  create  nor 
introduce  any  new  basis  of  Presbyterianism,  but  required 
an  adherence  to  the  true  and  only  basis  of  our  organiza- 
tion and  communion,  viz. :  the  doctrinal  standards  and 
constitution  of  our  church,  as  founded  on  the  word  of 
God,  a  deplorable  departure  from  which  had  been  suffered 
through  the  operation  of  the  Plan  of  Union."  And  fur- 
ther, "  that  it  was  not  then,  and  is  not  now,  required  of 
those  who  would  adhere  to  us  as  a  branch  of  the  church 
of  Christ,  that,  as  a  term  of  membership  in  this  church, 
they  should  approve  the  acts  of  the  Assembly  of  1837 
and  1838 ;  but  simply  that  they  should  recognize  the 
church  as  then  and  subsequently  constituted  as  the  Pres- 
byterian Church  in  the  United  States  of  America,  and 
acknowledge  their  subjection  to  its  judicatories."  This 
explanation  was  intended  partly  to  disabuse  the  minds  of 
those  who  desired  to  unite  with  us,  but  could  not  assent 
to  the  required  conditions,  according  to  their  understand- 
ing of  the  acts  of  the  Assembly  of  1838,  and  partly  to 


244  OLD    AND    NEW    THEOLOGY. 

vindicate  the  Assembly  from  the  charge  which  had  been 
opprobrious! J  made  against  them,  of  establishing  a  "  new 
basis"  wholly  unknown  to  the  constitution.  Our  New- 
school  brethren  maintained  that  there  could  not  be  a  con- 
stitutional General  Assembly  without  admitting  the  com- 
missioners from  the  four  Synods  of  Western  New  York 
and  the  Western  Reserve.  The  acts  of  the  Assembly  of 
1838,  assuming  that  what  had  been  done  the  preceding 
year  on  this  subject  was  "  constitutional  and  just,"  re- 
quired of  those  who  would  unite  with  us,  an  adherence  to 
the  Assembly  as  then  constituted,  and  a  recognition  of  it 
as  the  true  General  Assembly.  They  could  not  have 
required  less  than  this  without  receding  from  the  ground 
which  they  had  taken,  re-enacting  the  Plan  of  Union, 
and  restoring  those  Synods  to  their  former  connection 
with  the  Presbyterian  Church. 

The  question,  which  of  the  two  Assemblies  of  1838 
was  the  true  General  Assembly,  the  legitimate  and  legal 
successor  of  the  Assembly  of  1837  may  be  easily  deter- 
mined. Our  New-school  brethren  admit  that  the  acts  of 
the  Assembly  of  1837  excluding  the  four  Synods,  did  not 
destroy  that  body  or  render  their  subsequent  acts  during 
the  same  sessions  invalid.  They  found  their  claim  to  the 
succession  on  the  manner  of  constituting  the  Assembly  of 
1838.  The  standing  committee  of  commissions,  agree- 
ably to  the  instructions  of  the  preceding  Assembly,  re- 
fused at  the  opening  of  the  sessions  of  1838,  to  enrol  the 
names  of  the  commissioners  from  the  Presbyteries  belong- 
ing to  these  four  Synods,  and  the  moderator  declared  it 
out  of  order  to  put  to  the  house  a  motion  which  was  offered, 
touching  this  subject;  until  the  Assembly  should  be  or- 
ganized by  the  election  of  a  new  moderator ;  whereupon 


OLD    AND    NEW    THEOLOGY.  245 

the  New-school  commissioners,  bj  the  advice,  as  they 
said,  of  "counsel  learned  in  the  law,"  proceeded  immedi- 
ately to  appoint  a  new  moderator  and  clerks,  and  then 
adjourned  to  meet  in  another  house,  leaving  the  Old-school 
portion  in  the  quiet  occupancy  of  their  seats.  By  this 
manoeuvre  they  claim  to  have  deposed  the  moderator  and 
to  have  elected  another  in  his  place ;  and  then  after 
having  in  like  manner  elected  new  clerks,  to  have  carried 
with  them  as  they  left  the  house  the  true  and  legal  suc- 
cession. The  silence  of  the  Old-school  commissioners 
while  these  hasty  and  disorderly  proceedings  were  going 
on,  is  construed  by  them  as  having  been  a  legal  acqui- 
escence in  this  extraordinary  movement.  A  few  consid- 
erations will  place  this  matter  in  its  true  light. 

1.  If  the  acts  of  the  Assembly  of  1837  disowning  the 
four  Synods  were  "constitutional  and  strictly  just,"  as 
was  affirmed  by  the  Court  in  banc  for  the  State  of  Penn- 
sylvania, then  the  exclusion  of  the  commissioners  from 
those  Synods  in  1838,  was  constitutional  and  just,  be- 
cause this  was  nothing  more  than  adhering  to  what  had 
been  done  the  preceding  year. 

2.  The  refusal  of  the  clerks  to  enrol  the  names  of  those 
commissioners,  whether  right  or  wrong,  did  not  prevent 
the  Assembly  of  1838  from  being  validly  constituted,  our 
New-school  brethren  themselves  being  judges.  The  tender 
of  those  commissions  to  the  house  through  the  moderator, 
by  one  of  their  number,  and  his  motion  to  have  their 
names  enrolled,  assumed  that  there  was  a  regular  mode- 
rator in  the  chair,  and  a  judicatory  thus  far  validly  con- 
stituted ;  for  otherwise  they  were  not  competent  to  re- 
ceive and  act  upon  his  motion. 

3.  If,  then,  the  legal  existence  of  the  body  was  de- 

21* 


246  OLD    AND    NEW    THEOLOGY. 

stroyed  at  all,  tins  was  done  by  the  suicidal  act  of  the 
moderator  who  refused  to  put  the  motion,  on  the  ground 
that  it  was  out  of  order.  On  this  point  let  it  be  remem- 
bered, that  though  at  the  time  these  commissions  were 
offered,  he  had  just  called  for  additional  commissions,  if 
there  were  any  in  the  house  which  had  not  been  presented 
to  the  clerks,  this  call  applied  exclusively  to  those  con- 
cerning whose  right  to  seats  there  was  no  doubt,  and  not 
to  commissions  refused  by  the  clerks.  Contested  rights 
could  not  properly  be  debated  and  settled  at  that  time, 
as  the  next  business  in  order  was  to  elect  a  new  modera- 
tor ;  after  which,  commissions  of  this  description  might 
either  be  considered  by  the  Assembly,  or  referred  to  a 
special  committee  on  elections  to  examine  and  report 
thereon.  The  moderator  was  therefore  not  at  fault  in 
this  particular.  But  on  the  supposition  that  it  was  his 
duty  to  put  the  motion  (which  we  do  not  admit)  his  re- 
fusal to  do  so  did  not  depose  him  from  office.  This  could 
be  done,  (even  though  it  should  be  conceded  that  he  de- 
served deposition)  in  no  other  way  than  by  a  distinct 
motion  to  this  effect,  and  a  vote  of  the  house  upon  such 
motion  ;  which  it  is  not  pretended  was  done  or  attempted. 
4.  It  follows,  therefore,  that  the  proceedings  of  the 
New-school  commissioners,  which  were  based  on  the 
assumption  that  the  moderator's  chair  was  virtually 
vacated  by  his  own  act,  had  no  foundation  in  truth ;  and 
hence  those  proceedings  did  not  possess  either  ecclesias- 
tical or  legal  validity  to  effect  the  end  which  their  mem- 
bers who  participated  in  them  had  in  view.  The  body 
which  they  thought  proper  to  leave,  contained  at  the 
time,  and  after  the  New-school  members  left  the  house, 
all  the  regularly  constituted  officers  of  the  Assembly, 


OLD    AND    NEW    THEOLOGY.  247 

and  a  majority  of  all  the  commissioners  in  attendance. 
The  New-school  members  organized  a  General  Assembly ; 
but  it  was  another  and  a  different  body  from  the  General 
Assembly  of  1837-38 ;  the  constitutional  links  of  con- 
nection between  the  two  not  being  possessed  by  them ; 
while  in  the  organization  of  the  Old-school  Assembly 
were  found  all  the  requisite  elements  of  a  true  and  legal 
succession. 

The  following  extract  from  the  opinion  of  the  Court  in 
banc  already  referred  to,  fully  sustains  us  in  these  views. 
"  It  appears,  therefore,  {i.  e.  it  follows  from  the  preced- 
ing argument)  that  the  commissioners  from  the  exscinded 
Synods,  were  not  entitled  to  seats  in  the  Assembly,  and 
that  their  names  were  properly  excluded  from  the  roll. 
The  inquiry  might  be  rested  here ;  for  if  there  was  no 
colour  of  right  in  them,  there  was  no  colour  of  right  in 
the  adversary  proceedings  which  were  founded  on  their 
exclusion.  But  even  if  their  title  w^ere  clear,  the  refusal 
of  an  appeal  from  the  decision  of  the  moderator,  would 
be  no  ground  for  the  degradation  of  the  officer  at  the  call 
of  ar-  minority ;  nor  could  it  impose  on  the  majority  an 
obligation  to  vote  on  a  question  put  unofficially,  and  out 
of  the  usual  course.  To  all  questions  put  by  the  estab- 
lished organ,  it  is  the  duty  of  every  member  to  respond, 
or  be  counted  with  the  greater  number,  because  he  is  sup- 
posed to  have  assented  beforehand  to  the  result  of  the 
process  pre-established  to  ascertain  the  general  will ;  but 
the  rule  of  implied  assent  is  certainly  inapplicable  to  a 
measure  which,  when  justifiable  even  by  extreme  neces- 
sity, is  essentially  revolutionary,  and  based  on  no  pre- 
established  process  of  ascertainment  whatever. 

"  To  apply  it  to  an  extreme  case  of  inorganic  action, 


248  OLD    AND    NEW    THEOLOGY. 

as  was  done  here,  might  work  the  degradation  of  any  pre- 
siding officer  in  our  legislative  halls,  bj  the  motion  and 
actual  vote  of  a  single  member,  sustained  by  the  con- 
structive votes  of  all  the  rest ;  and  though  such  an  en- 
terprise may  never  be  attempted,  it  shows  the  danger  of 
resorting  to  a  conventional  rule,  when  the  body  is  to  be 
resolved  into  its  original  elements,  and  the  rules  and  con- 
ventions to  be  superseded,  by  the  very  motion.  For  this 
reason,  the  choice  of  a  moderator  to  supplant  the  officer 
in  the  chair,  even  if  he  were  removable  at  the  pleasure 
of  the  commissioners,  would  seem  to  have  been  uncon- 
stitutional. 

"  But  he  was  not  removable  by  them,  because  he  had 
not  derived  his  office  from  them  ;  nor  was  he  answerable 
to  them  for  the  use  of  his  power.  He  was  not  their  mo- 
derator. He  was  the  mechanical  instrument  of  their 
organization ;  and  till  that  was  accomplished,  they  were 
subject  to  his  rule — not  he  to  theirs.  They  were  chosen 
by  the  authority  of  his  mandate,  and  with  the  power  of 
self-organization,  only  in  the  event  of  his  absence  at  the 
opening  of  the  session.  Corporally  present,  but  refusing 
to  perform  his  functions,  he  might  be  deemed  construc- 
tively absent,  for  constitutional  purposes,  insomuch  that 
the  commissioners  might  proceed  to  the  choice  of  a  sub- 
stitute without  him ;  but  not  if  he  had  entered  on  the 
performance  of  his  task ;  and  the  reason  is  that  the  de- 
cision of  such  questions  as  were  prematurely  pressed  here, 
is  proper  for  the  decision  of  the  body  when  prepared  for 
organic  action,  which  it  cannot  be  before  it  is  fully  con- 
stituted, and  under  the  presidency  of  its  own  moderator ; 
the  moderator  of  the  preceding  session  being  functus 
officio It  seems,  then,  that  an  appeal  from  the  de- 


OLD    AND    NEW    THEOLOGY.  249 

cision  of  the  moderator  did  not  lie ;  and  that  he  incurred 
no  penalty  by  the  disallowance  of  it.  The  title  of  the 
exscinded  commissioners  could  be  determined  only  by  the 
action  of  the  house,  which  could  not  be  had  before  its 
organization  was  complete  ;  and  in  the  mean  time,  he  was 
bound,  as  the  executive  instrument  of  the  preceding  As- 
sembly, to  put  its  ordinance  into  execution ;  for  to  the 
actual  Assembly,  and  not  to  the  moderator  of  the  pre- 
ceding one,  it  belonged  to  repeal  it." 


CHAPTER  XIL 

PRESENT    CHARACTER   AND   CONDITION    OF    THE    OLD    AND    NEW- 
SCHOOL    BODIES. 

As  several  years  have  transpired  since  the  division 
of  the  Presbyterian  Church  into  two  bodies,  there  has 
been  sufficient  opportunity  for  judging  whether  those 
causes  which  contributed  to  produce  the  separation  were 
real  or  imaginary,  temporary  or  permanent.  It  has 
never  been  denied  that  a  subordinate  cause  of  the  di- 
vision was  the  difference  in  the  views  of  the  two  parties 
concerning  voluntary  societies  and  ecclesiastical  boards ; 
though  this  of  itself  could  not  have  resulted  in  the  for- 
mation of  two  distinct  churcheg.  No  better  evidence  of 
this  could  be  required  than  the  fact,  that  since  that  time 
our  New-school  brethren  have  so  nearly  approximated  to 
the  views  of  the  Old-school  church  on  this  subject,  that 
if  this  were  all,  or  even  the  chief  cause  of  our  separation, 


250  OLD    AND    NEW    THEOLOGY. 

the  union  of  the  two  divisions  could  at  present  be  very 
easily  eifected.  But,  though  in  this  respect  we  now 
occupy  nearly  the  same  ground,  no  approach  has  been 
made  to  a  coalescence  of  the  separated  parts.  On  what 
principle  can  this  be  accounted  for,  except  that  the  main 
cause,  which  produced  the  division  still  exists,  viz. :  the 
more  serious  and  less  reconcilable  difference  on  doctrinal 
subjects  ? 

The  same  difference  exists  as  formerly,  with  regard  to 
what  is  implied  in  adopting  our  Confession  of  Faith.  In  a 
recent  work  authorized  by  the  Synods  of  New  York  and 
New  Jersey,  a  notice  of  which  is  found  in  our  Introduction, 
the  writer  acknowledges  that  the  New-school  party,  which 
he  represents,  admits  "  of  diversity  of  views  on  points 
not  affecting  the  integrity  of  the  system,"  and  that  "per- 
fect uniformity  in  reference  to  a  system  so  comprehensive 
and  minute  in  its  details,  is  not  to  be  expected,  and  ought 
not  to  be  required."  In  this  acknowledgment  we  have 
the  starting  point  of  the  differences  between  the  two 
schools.  The  Old-school  requires  an  honest,  full  and 
hearty  subscription  to  the  creed  of  the  church ;  the  New 
leaves  every  one  to  judge  what  is  essential  to  the  system ; 
and  under  this  convenient  subterfuge,  the  protean  forms 
of  new  theology  have  crept  into  the  church.  Again,  the 
same  difference  exists  as  in  former  years,  on  several  im- 
portant points  of  Scripture  doctrine.  The  extravagant 
manner  of  speaking  which  was  then  common  in  some 
sections  of  our  country  is  now  unknown ;  and  there  are 
indications  of  a  sounder  faith  in  a  number  of  ministers 
who  were  once  of  questionable  orthodoxy.  But  several 
of  those  men  whose  published  errors  were  the  main  ground 
of  our  former  troubles,  are  now  in  the  New-school  body, 


OLD    AND    NEW    THEOLOGY.  251 

take  a  prominent  and  leading  part,  and  maintain  and  teach 
the  same  doctrines  as  in  years  past.  The  Rev.  Albert 
Barnes,  as  Moderator  of  the  New-school  General  As- 
sembly of  1851,  delivered  a  discourse  before  that  body, 
in  which  he  not  only  reaffirmed  his  former  errors,  but 
caricatured  those  doctrines  which  from  time  immemorial 
have  been  esteemed  orthodox,  and  which  are  known  to  be 
held  by  the  Old-school.  When  a  motion  was  made  to 
print  it,  one  or  two  members  (perhaps  more — we  write 
from  recollection)  expressed  their  dissent  from  some 
points  contained  in  it,  and  objected  to  its  being  published 
under  the  sanction  of  the  Assembly,  The  motion  was 
withdrawn,  but  with  the  understanding  that  the  discourse 
should  be  printed,  which  was  accordingly  done.  How 
many  of  that  Assembly  dissented  from  its  teachings  we 
have  no  means  of  knowing ;  but  not  an  individual  pro- 
tested against  them,  or  even  expressed  disapprobation 
except  in  the  manner  above  mentioned.  We  are  not 
aware  that  the  accredited  organs  of  that  body  contained 
any  strictures  on  the  sermon  after  it  came  from  the  press ; 
and  in  one  section  of  the  country  (we  cannot  speak  for 
all)  we  happen  to  know  that  pains  were  taken  by  persons 
belonging  to  that  church  to  circulate  it  among  the  people. 
The  periodicals  alluded  to,  as  for  example  the  Biblical 
Repository,  the  New  York  Evangelist,  and  the  Philadel- 
phia Christian  Observer,  furnish  also  positive  evidence, 
from  the  character  of  some  of  their  articles,  that  those 
errors  are  held  by  some,  we  fear  a  considerable  number, 
in  that  connection. 


252  OLD    AND    NEW    THEOLOGY. 


EFFECTS   OF   THE   DIVISION. 

The  necessity  for  a  division  of  the  church  was  depre- 
cated by  all ;  and  by  none  more  sincerely  than  the  Old- 
school.  It  was  anticipated  that  temporary  evils  and  in- 
conveniences would  result  from  it,  which  no  legislation 
could  wholl}''  prevent.  But  it  was  deemed  preferable  to 
submit  to  these  evils,  for  the  sake  of  avoiding  still  greater 
ones  which  appeared  to  be  inevitable,  if  the  two  parties 
in  the  church  should  continue  any  longer  in  the  same 
body.  To  use  the  language  of  an  excellent  and  distin- 
guished brother  in  the  ministry,  "  We  were  reduced  to 
this  simple  question,  Is  the  Presbyterian  Church  worth  an 
effort  to  save  V  The  effort  was  made,  and  in  the  good 
providence  of  God  it  has  been  crowned  with  success. 
Our  condition  as  a  Church,  we  are  persuaded,  is  far 
better  than  it  would  have  been  if  the  division  had  not 
occurred,  unless  (an  event  not  to  have  been  expected)  our 
New-school  brethren  had  materially  modified  their  former 
views. 

One  beneficial  effect  of  the  separation  has  been  the 
enjoyment  of  greater  harmony  and  peace.  However 
humiliating  the  acknowledgment,  it  is  nevertheless  true, 
that  for  seven  years  or  more  previous  to  the  division,  so 
heterogeneous  were  the  materials  which  composed  the 
highest  judicatory  of  our  church,  that  the  floor  of  the 
General  Assembly  had  become  an  arena  of  strife  and 
controversy.  Irrespective  of  the  question  which  of  the 
two  parties  were  in  the  wrong,  the  simple  facts  that  they 
were  at  variance,  and  that  their  differences  could  not  be 
reconciled,  were  sufficient  reasons,  as  in  the  case  of  Abra- 


OLD    AND    NEW    THEOLOOT.  253 

ham  and  Lot,  (Gen.  xiii.  8,  9)  not  only  for  justifying  but 
demanding  separation.  The  removal  of  these  discordant 
elements,  and  the  organization  of  another  body  by  that 
portion  of  the  church  which  differed  from  us,  restored  to 
our  Assembly  that  harmony  of  action  which  characterized 
its  early  history. 

Another  effect  of  the  division  has  been  the  restoration 
to  our  body  of  its  former  unity  in  doctrinal  views.  A 
half  century  ago  it  was  sufficient  to  know  that  a  man  was 
a  Presbyterian  minister,  in  order  to  feel  assured  that  he 
was  sound  in  the  faith,  according  to  the  Calvinistic  sense 
of  this  phrase.  But  for  ten  years  previous  to  1837,  this 
test  was  quite  insufficient.  Under  the  Presbyterian 
name,  and  with  Presbyterian  credentials,  ministers  passed 
from  congregation  to  congregation  in  certain  parts  of  our 
country,  and  promulgated  Arminian  and  even  Pelagian 
tenets.  At  the  former  period,  in  changing  one's  minis- 
terial connection  from  one  Presbytery  to  another,  a  cer- 
tificate of  good  and  regular  standing  was  deemed  suffi- 
cient, without  a  personal  examination.  But  during  the 
latter,  the  presenting  of  "clean  papers"  was  found  to  be 
no  certain  evidence  of  soundness  in  the  faith.  Distrust 
and  suspicion  took  the  place  of  confidence.  Some  Pres- 
byteries began  to  examine  applicants  for  admission  to 
their  bodies  from  other  Presbyteries,  however  satisfactory 
might  be  their  written  credentials.  This  practice  being 
objected  to,  the  question  was  brought  before  the  General 
Assembly.  In  1834,  the  right  to  re-examine  was  denied. 
But  in  1835,  (the  Old-school  being  in  the  majority),  the 
Assembly  decided  that  "it  is  the  right  of  every  Presby- 
tery to  be  entirely  satisfied  ©f  the  soundness  in  the  faith 
of  those  ministers  who  apply  to  be  admitted  into  the 
22 


254  OLD    AND    NEW    THEOLOGY. 

Presbytery  as  members."  This  was  a  partial  remedy  of 
the  evil ;  but  our  former  unity  of  sentiment  was  not  re- 
stored, until  the  separate  organization  of  the  New-school 
body. 

The  "  History  of  the  Division"  already  referred  to, 
after  quoting  the  Adopting  Act  of  1729,  observes  :  "  This 
instrument  does  immortal  honour  to  its  authors,  and  those 
who  receive  it  as  a  bond  of  Christian  union  and  fellow- 
ship. It  provides  for  the  preservation,  *  pure  and  entire,* 
of  the  system  of  doctrine"  (the  italics  are  not  in  the 
Adopting  Act)  "  embraced  in  the  Confession  of  Faith  and 
Catechism.  To  errors  which  are  subversive  of  this  sys- 
tem, it  gives  not  the  least  approval  or  even  toleration, 
and  at  the  same  time  admits  what  is  undoubtedly  true  of 
every  human  symbol  of  doctrinal  belief,  equally  exten- 
sive and  minute  in  its  details,  that  it  embraces  some  things 
in  regard  to  which  those  who  sincerely  adopt  it,  may  law- 
fully differ.  It  likewise  bound  those  who  adopted  it,  to 
treat  each  other,  their  minor  differences  notwithstanding, 
with  Christian  courtesy  and  brotherly  affection.  It  is 
difficult  to  conceive  how  it  could  have  been  better  adapted 
to  keep  '  the  unity  of  the  Spirit  in  the  bond  of  peace.* 
Had  the  Presbyterian  Church  in  this  country  been  gov- 
erned by  the  pacific  and  magnanimous  principles  of  this 
act,  she  would,  at  this  time,  have  been  a  united  body." 
To  this  last  remark  we  give  our  assent.  It  was  to  pre- 
serve the  unity  which  is  here  so  much  lauded,  that  the 
Old-school  made  such  strenuous  efforts  before  the  division 
of  the  church.  They  have  not,  to  our  knowledge,  either 
before  or  since,  taken  any  higher  ground  than  that  re- 
quired by  the  Adopting  Aot  of  1729.  A  reference  to 
Chapter  X.  of  this  treatise  will  show  that  our  New-school 


OLD    AND    NEW    THEOLOGY.  255 

brethren  contended  for  much  greater  latitude  than  was 
authorized  by  that  act.  The  errors  which  they  refused 
to  condemn,  were  believed  by  their  Old-school  brethren 
to  be  "subversive"  of  the  "system  of  doctrine  embraced 
in  the  Confession  of  Faith  and  Catechisms ;"  and  hence, 
according  to  the  author's  own  showing,  that  act  did  "  not 
give  them  the  least  approval  or  even  toleration."  If  the 
New-school  had  co-operated  with  the  Old  in  adopting 
efficient  measures  to  counteract  those  errors  when  they 
first  made  their  appearance,  they  might  have  been  recti- 
fied without  a  division,  and  the  church  "have  been  at 
this  time  a  united  body."  The  truly  catholic  spirit  of 
the  Adopting  Act  is  felt  and  manifested  as  heartily  and 
consistently  by  the  Old-school  body  as  the  New.  The 
cases  alluded  to  in  the  "  History"  for  a  different  purpose, 
show  that  there  is  among  us  no  disposition  to  place  our 
ministers  on  the  "bed  of  Procrustes,"  and  require  them, 
on  pain  of  excommunication,  to  be  exactly  conformed  to 
this  iron  model.  Uniformity  in  Christian  doctrine  is  not 
understood  as  requiring  a  perfect  agreement  in  "  minor* 
points  ;  but  it  is  equally  removed  from  that  false  liberal- 
ity which  includes  under  the  head  of  minor  points,  im- 
portant and  dangerous  errors.  The  Bible  rule  is,  "  first 
pure,  then  peaceable."  To  secure  this  purity,  and  the 
peace  that  succeeds  it,  was  the  end  which  the  Old-school 
hoped  to  obtain  by  the  separation  ;  it  having  become 
apparent  that  neither  was  practicable  while  the  two  parties 
remained  together.  And  as  far  as  we  are  able  to  judge 
by  a  reference  to  the  past  history  of  the  church,  there  is 
now  as  much  unity  of  doctrinal  views  in  the  Old-school 
body  as  at  any  former  period  since  the  organization  of 
the  Presbyterian  Church  in  this  country.     The  present 


256  OLD    AND    NEW    THEOLOGY. 

character  of  the  New-school  church  in  this  respect,  we 
shall  not  attempt  to  describe.  At  the  Auburn  Conven- 
tion in  1837,  a  prominent  member  observed  to  us,  "  You 
find  us  here  of  all  colours  ;"  but  we  trust  they  have  be- 
come more  homogeneous  in  sentiment  since  that  time. 

A  third  result  of  the  division  has  been  the  existence 
of  more  harmony  and  efficiency  in  benevolent  action. 
Above  a  century  ago,  the  work  of  sending  missionaries 
to  our  frontier  settlements  and  the  Indian  tribes  received 
the  attention  of  the  church  ;  and  simultaneously  with  this, 
the  education  of  pious  and  talented  young  men  for  the 
gospel  ministry.  The  records  of  old  Synods  of  New  York 
and  Philadelphia,  before  and  after  the  union,  show  that 
a  great  deal  w^as  accomplished  in  these  several  depart- 
ments ;  and  after  the  organization  of  the  General  As- 
sembly, in  1789,  these  objects  occupy  a  prominent  place 
in  the  minutes  of  that  body.  In  1802,  the  Assembly 
appointed  a  Standing  Committee  of  Missions ;  and  in 
1817  they  constituted  the  Board  of  Missions,  with  en- 
larged powers  and  a  permanent  organization.  An  over- 
ture was  sent  down  to  the  Presbyteries  in  1805,  respect- 
ing the  education  of  pious  youth  for  the  gospel  ministry, 
and  action  was  taken  on  the  subject  at  the  following  and 
one  or  two  subsequent  meetings  of  the  Assembly,  till 
1819,  when  the  Board  of  Education  was  constituted,  to 
superintend  and  carry  on  this  department  in  behalf  of 
the  Assembly.  But  for  some  time  these  Boards  were 
rather  bonds  of  union  between  the  different  judicatories 
of  the  church,  than  the  sole  agents  to  prosecute  the  work. 
Presbyteries  and  Synods,  in  many  instances,  conducted 
both  missions  and  education  in  their  own  bounds,  and 
reported  their  doings  annually,  either  to  the  Boards  or 


OLD    AND    NEW    THEOLOGY.  257 

directly  to  the  Assembly.  Important  good,  however,  was 
accomplished  by  the  direct  agency  of  these  Boards,  both 
in  training  candidates  and  in  sending  missionaries  to  des- 
titute white  settlements,  to  the  coloured  population  of  the 
South,  and  to  different  Indian  tribes.  In  1809,  the  As- 
sembly adopted  a  resolution,  "  earnestly  recommending 
that  each  Synod  take  measures  for  establishing  as  many 
religious  tract  societies  within  their  bounds,  by  the  asso- 
ciating of  one  or  more  Presbyteries,  as  may  be  most  con- 
venient for  this  purpose."  One  such  society  was  subse- 
quently organized  by  the  Synod  of  Philadelphia,  denomi- 
nated the  Presbyterian  Tract  Society,  which  published 
fifteen  or  twenty  valuable  tracts,  forming  two  volumes  of 
the  series  of  works  now  issued  by  the  Assembly's  Board 
of  Publication. 

The  formation  of  the  American  Boar4  of  Commission- 
ers for  Foreign  Missions,  the  American  Education  So- 
ciety, the  American  Home  Missionary  Society,  and  the 
American  Tract  Society,  modified  the  policy  and  divided 
the  action  of  the  Presbyterian  Church,  with  regard  to 
these  several  objects.  Except  the  Synod  of  Pittsburgh, 
who  carried  on  the  missionary  work  among  several  tribes 
of  Indians,  our  efforts  for  Foreign  Missions  were  made 
principally  through  the  American  Board.  The  mission 
among  the  Cherokees,  which  had  been  commenced  by  the 
Committee  of  Missions  appointed  by  the  Assembly,  and 
conducted  successfully  for  seven  years,  at  an  expense  of 
eight  or  ten  thousand  dollars,  was  placed  under  the  care 
of  that  Board ;  and  the  Synods  of  Virginia  and  North 
Carolina  formed  therewith  a  direct  auxiliary  connection ; 
though  with  the  condition  incorporated  in  their  constitu- 
tion, that  they  might  withdraw  from  it  without  offence,  or 
22* 


258  OLD    AND    NEW    THEOLOGY. 

a  breacli  of  courtesy,  whenever  the  General  Assembly 
should  think  proper  to  resume  the  work  of  Foreign  Mis- 
sions. The  American  Education  Society  had  a  Presby- 
terian Branch,  and  the  American  Tract  and  Home  Mis- 
sionary Societies  were  allowed  free  access  to  our  churches 
for  the  collection  of  funds  to  carry  on  their  operations. 
In  the  department  of  Domestic  Missions  and  Ministerial 
Education,  for  the  promotion  of  which  our  own  Boards 
were  operating  at  the  same  time,  difficulties  and  collisions 
were  found  to  result  from  the  action  of  two  independent 
organizations  for  these  objects  in  the  same  field,  to  say 
nothing  of  the  doctrinal  errors  which  were  incidentally 
introduced  among  us  through  the  operation  of  those  so- 
cieties. The  action  of  our  Boards  was  restrained  and 
embarrassed,  and  far  less  was  accomplished  than  would 
have  been  under  more  favourable  circumstances.  This 
was  one  source  of  the  difficulty  between  the  two  parties 
in  the  church,  some  particulars  of  which  have  been  al- 
ready given.  The  resolutions  adopted  by  the  last  New- 
school  Assembly  on  this  subject,  are  a  virtual  admission 
that  the  Old-school  were  right  in  that  contest. 

Since  the  division,  these  four  objects,  viz. :  Domestic 
Missions,  Foreign  Missions,  Ministerial  and  General 
Education,  and  the  Publication  of  Evangelical  Books  and 
Tracts,  have  been  all  conducted  by  as  many  distinct  but 
co-ordinate  Boards,  under  the  supervision  of  the  Gene- 
ral Assembly.  We  regard  them  as  wisely  adapted  to 
accomplish  the  ends  which  they  have  in  view.  For  har- 
mony and  energy  in  action,  for  efficiency  and  usefulness 
in  their  results,  they  are  unsurpassed  by  any  similar 
organizations  in  our  country.  Next  to  the  stated  minis- 
try of  the  gospel,  they  constitute  the  power  and  glory  of 


OLD    AND    NEW    THEOLOGY.  259 

our  church.  Their  success  and  usefulness  afford  pleasmg 
evidence  of  the  divine  favour.  We  record  it,  not  with 
boasting,  but  with  gratitude,  that  (as  we  verily  believe) 
the  Holy  Spirit  is  with  these  Boards  of  the  church,  and 
that  the  providence  of  God  is  over  them — the  former  to 
impart  to  them  unity  and  vitality ;  the  latter  to  defend 
and  prosper  them.  We  have  now  no  pretext  for  inaction. 
While  we  rejoice  in  the  zeal  and  success  of  every  branch 
of  Christ's  church  who  are  engaged  in  promoting  his 
cause,  let  us  not  be  behind  them,  either  in  the  expansive- 
ness  or  efficiency  of  our  benevolence. 

Finally ;  we  have  enjoyed  as  a  church  greater  pros- 
perity and  enlargement  since  the  division,  than  could 
have  been  reasonably  anticipated,  if  the  two  parties  had 
continued  together.  Had  there  been  a  unanimity  of  sen- 
timent in  the  whole  church,  our  growth,  like  that  of  our 
nation,  might  have  been  constant ;  and  our  prosperity 
increased  rather  than  diminished,  by  preserving  the  in- 
tegrity of  the  body,  and  "  consecrating  our  united  ener- 
gies to  the  advancement  of  Christ's  kingdom."  But  we 
were  virtually  divided,  for  several  years  before  the  organ- 
ization of  two  separate  bodies  —  divided  in  sentiment 
though  nominally  acting  in  concert.  Under  these  cir- 
cumstances, a  merely  nominal  union  added  nothing  either 
to  the  beauty  or  strength  of  the  church ;  and  our  con- 
tinuance in  the  same  body  gave  no  promise  of  future 
prosperity.  After  the  separation,  each  party  was  in  a 
position  to  act  more  unitedly  and  efficiently  than  before. 
We  have  since  experienced  no  hinderance  from  our  New- 
school  brethren  or  they  from  us.  As  to  which  of  the 
two  bodies  has  enjoyed  greater  prosperity,  or  received  a 
larger  number  to  its  communion,  we  shall  make  no  par- 


260  OLD    AND    NEW    THEOLOGY. 

ticiilar  estimate.  Comparisons  of  this  kind  may  be  re- 
garded as  invidious ;  and  besides,  numerical  increase  is 
not  a  sure  test  of  the  divine  approbation.  But  so  far  as 
an  appeal  to  this  circumstance  is  admissible,  we  have 
abundant  reason  to  be  satisfied  and  thankful  to  God  for 
our  present  relative  position.  A  detailed  statistical  ac- 
count would  show  that  in  the  increase  of  numbers,  in  the 
extension  of  territory,  and  in  whatever  else  constitutes 
external  prosperity  we  have  made  great  and  pleasing 
progress.  But  in  the  present  connection  we  are  not  dis- 
posed to  particularize.  There  is  an  apostolic  caution, 
"Be  not  high  minded  but  fear."  Since  we  are  so  highly 
favoured  in  outward  circumstances,  let  it  be  our  earnest 
prayer  and  diligent  effort  to  enjoy  in  an  equal  degree 
internal  prosperity.  Our  growth  in  grace  and  holiness 
should  be  in  grand  parallel  with  our  progress  in  numbers 
and  influence. 

PROPER  TREATMENT  OF  EACH  OTHER. 

As  we  are  now  two  distinct  bodies,  it  is  obvious  that 
the  same  principles  should  govern  us  in  our  intercourse 
with  each  other,  as  are  applicable  to  all  evangelical 
churches.  The  circumstance  that  we  have  recently  been 
one  church,  has  a  tendency  (such  is  human  nature)  to 
make  us  more  cold  in  exchanging  ordinary  Christian 
courtesies,  than  we  should  be,  if  we  had  never  belonged 
to  the  same  body.  This  tendency  has  been  counter- 
acted, in  a  great  degree,  by  the  lapse  of  years  ;  and  it 
will  be  ere  long  removed,  unless  a  vindictive  and  jealous 
spirit  is  fostered  and  kept  alive  by  those  who  control  pub- 
lic sentiment.     The  Old-school,  as  far  as  we  are  acquaint- 


OLD    AND    NEW    THEOLOGY.  261 

ed,  are  generally  disposed  to  treat  their  New-school  breth- 
ren with  kindness ;  to  throw  no  obstacle  in  the  way  of 
their  prosperity ;  to  hold  with  them  occasional  communion ; 
to  supply  their  pulpits  when  invited,  and  to  extend  to 
their  ministers  who  may  be  known  to  be  sound  in  the 
faith,  ministerial  fellowship  and  confidence.  The>e  feel- 
ings are  reciprocated  by  some  of  the  New-school  body. 
But  others  among  them  continue  to  reiterate,  in  censori- 
ous and  even  abusive  language,  the  charge  of  injustice 
and  oppression,  in  the  measures  adopted  by  the  General 
Assembly  of  1837  ;  to  accuse  us  of  an  intolerant  and 
bigoted  spirit  in  not  now  consenting  to  a  reunion  of  the 
two  bodies ;  and  yet  insinuate  that  we  contemplate  a  union 
at  no  distant  day,  by  the  "  absorption  of  their  ministers 
and  churches."  We  refer  to  these  things,  not  to  discuss 
their  merits,  but  for' the  purpose  of  remarking,  (1)  that 
it  is  a  singular  preparation  for  reunion,  to  abuse  the  party 
with  whom  it  is  proposed  to  unite ;  (2)  that  if  we  were 
to  form  a  reunion,  and  if  such  a  spirit  as  is  here  mani- 
fested towards  the  Old-school  body  should  be  exhibited 
ivithin  it,  a  second  division  would  be  as  necessary  as  the 
first ;  (3)  that  when  the  chief  causes  which  produced  the 
separation  shall  cease  to  exist,  the  Old-school  church  will 
unquestionably  be  as  cordial  in  listening  to  an  overture 
for  reunion  from  the  New-school  division,  as  they  always 
have  been  when  receiving  similar  applications  from  other 
churches  of  the  same  faith  and  order  with  ourselves ;  (4) 
that  we  never  have  been  distinguished  as  a  j^^oseli/ting 
church,  are  not  so  now,  and  of  course  are  not  accustomed 
to  make  any  attempts  to  "  absorb  the  ministers  and 
churches"  of  other  denominations;  yet  we  always  open 
our  doors  to  receive  those,  whether  ministers,  churches, 


262  OLD    AND    NEW    THEOLOGY. 

or  individual  members,  who  embrace  the  doctrines  con- 
tained in  our  standards,  and  express  a  desire  to  enter 
our  communion ;  (5)  that  though  for  a  number  of  years 
before  the  separation,  we  were  unhappily  too  often  coming 
into  collision,  it  becomes  us  now  to  lay  aside  former  jeal- 
ousies, and  "  study  the  things  which  make  for  peace.'* 
There  is  no  good  reason  why  "Ephi'aim  should  envy 
Judah,  or  Judah  vex  Ephraim." 

It  is  on  the  whole  no  disadvantage  that  there  are  dif- 
ferent Christian  denominations.  The  numerical  unity 
of  the  Papal  church,  or  even  its  boasted  unity  of  religi- 
ous faith,  is  very  dissimilar  to  the  catholic  unity  which  is 
commended  and  enjoined  in  the  Holy  Scriptures.  The 
Reformed  churches  in  the  days  of  Luther  and  Calvin, 
Cranmer  and  Knox,  though  not  in  every  respect  identi- 
cal in  creed,  form  of  government,  or  mode  of  worship, 
were  characterized  by  as  much  real  unity  as  though  they 
had  all  acknowledged  one  visible  head ;  and  they  pro- 
bably acted  with  greater  eflSciency  in  their  separate,  yet 
harmonious,  efforts  to  advance  the  Redeemer's  kingdom. 
The  same  may  be  true  now ;  and  hence  it  should  be  re- 
garded as  an  object  of  less  importance  to  secure  an  or- 
ganic union  of  all  evangelical  churches  in  the  same  body, 
than  to  see  them  all  faithfully  and  zealously  performing 
the  work  of  the  Lord  under  their  own  banners ;  while 
towards  each  other  they  keep  "  the  unity  of  the  Spirit  in 
the  bond  of  peace."  This  idea  carried  out  to  perfection, 
with  the  additional  one  of  the  glorious  presence  of  Christ 
with  his  people,  contains  the  chief  elements  in  those  sub- 
lime descriptions  recorded  in  God's  word,  of  the  future 
Btate  of  the  Church  during  her  best  and  brightest  period 
on  earth. 


APPENDIX 

REFERRED    TO,    p.    212. 


"  The  Rev.  Drs.  Edwards,  McKuigh't,  and  Woodhull,  the 
Rev.  Mr.  Blatchford,  and  Mr.  Hutton,  were  appointed  a  com- 
mittee to  consider  and  digest  a  plan  of  government  for  the 
Churches  in  the  new  settlements,  agreeably  to  the  proposals  of 
the  General  Association  of  Connecticut,  and  report  the  same 
as  soon  as  convenient. 

"  The  report  of  the  committee  appointed  to  consider  and  di- 
gest a  plan  of  government  for  the  Churches  in  the  new  settle- 
ments, was  taken  up  and  considered,  and  after  mature  delibera- 
tion on  the  same,  approved,  as  follows : 

"  Regulations  adopted  by  the  General  Assembly  of  the 
Presbyterian  Church  in  America,  and  by  the  General  Associa- 
tion of  the  State  of  Connecticut,  (provided  said  Association 
agree  to  them,)  with  a  view  to  prevent  alienation,  and  to  pro- 
mote union  and  harmony  in  those  new  settlements  which  are 
composed  of  inhabitants  from  these  bodies. 

"1.  It  is  strictly  enjoined  on  all  their  missionaries  to  the 
new  settlements,  to  endeavour,  by  all  proper  means,  to  promote 
mutual  forbearance,  and  a  spirit  of  accommodation  between 
those  inhabitants  of  the  new  settlements  who  hold  the  Presby- 
terian, and  those  who  hold  the  Congregational  form  of  Church 
government. 

*'  2.  If  in  the  new  settlements  any  Church  of  the  Congrega- 
tional order  shall  settle  a  Minister  of  the  Presbyterian  order, 
that  Church  may,  if  they  choose,  still  conduct  their  discipline 
according  to  the  Congregational  principles,  settling  their  diffi- 
culties among  themselves,  or  by  a  council  mutually  agreed 
upon  for  that  purpose.  But  if  any  difficulty  shall  exist  between 
the  Minister  and  the  Church,  or  any  member  of  it,  it  shall  be 

(2G3} 


264  APPENDIX.  ^ 

referred  to  the  Presbytery  to  whicli  the  Minister  shall  belong, 
provided  both  parties  agree  to  it;  if  not,  to  a  council  consist- 
ing of  an  equal  nun)ber  of  Presbyterians  and  Congregationalists, 
agreed  upon  by  both  parties. 

"3.  If  a  Presbyterian  Church  shall  settle  a  Minister  of  Con- 
gregational principles,  that  Church  may  still  conduct  their  dis- 
cipline according  to  Presbyterian  principles,  excepting  that  if 
a  difficulty  arise  between  him  and  his  Church,  or  any  member 
of  it,  the  cause  shall  be  tried  by  the  Association  to  which  the 
said  Minister  shall  belong,  provided  both  parties  agree  to  it ; 
otherwise  by  a  council,  one-half  Congregationalists  and  the 
other  Presbyterians,  mutually  agreed  upon  by  the  parties. 

'^4.  If  any  Congregation  consist  partly  of  those  who  hold 
the  Congregational  form  of  discipline,  and  partly  of  those  who 
hold  the  Presbyterian  form,  we  recommend  to  both  parties  that 
this  be  no  obstruction  to  their  uniting  in  one  Church  and 
settling  a  minister ;  and  that  in  this  case  the  Church  choose  a 
standing  committee  from  the  communicants  of  said  Church, 
whose  business  it  shall  be  to  call  to  account  every  member  of 
the  Church,  who  shall  conduct  himself  inconsistently  with  the 
laws  of  Christianity,  and  to  give  judgment  on  such  conduct. 
That  if  the  person  condemned  by  their  judgment  be  a  Pres- 
byterian, he  shall  have  liberty  to  appeal  to  the  Presbytery  ;  if 
he  be  a  Congregationalist,  he  shall  have  liberty  to  apjjeal  to 
the  body  of  the  male  communicants  of  the  Church.  In  the 
former  case,  the  determination  of  the  Presbytery  shall  be  final, 
"unless  the  Church  shall  consent  to  a  further  appeal  to  the 
Synod,  or  to  the  General  Assembly;  and  in  the  latter  case,  if 
the  party  condemned  shall  wish  for  a  trial  by  a  mutual  council, 
the  case  shall  be  referred  to  such  a  council.  And  provided 
the  said  standing  committee  of  any  Church  shall  depute  one 
of  themselves  to  attend  the  Presbytery,  he  may  have  the  same 
right  to  sit  and  act  in  the  Presbytery,  as  a  Kuling  Elder  of 
the  Presbyterian  Church." — Minutes,  1801,  pp.  221,  224. 

[The  plan  was  ratified  by  the  General  Association.] — Minutes,  1802,  p.  237 

THE   END. 


DATE  DUE 


.......^^ 

Kt^.--    -.,. 

• 

j 

1 

GAYLORD 

PRINTED  IN  U.S.A. 

